Could large number of "not selected" pages cause a penalty?
-
My site was penalized for specific pages in the UK On July 28 (corresponding with a Panda update).
I cleaned up my website and wrote to Google and they responded that "no manual spam actions had been taken".
The only other thing I can think of is that we suffered an automatic penalty.
I am having problems with my sitemap and it is indexing many error pages, empty pages, etc... According to our index status we have 2,679,794 not selected pages and 36,168 total indexed.
Could this have been what caused the error?
(If you have any articles to back up your answers that would be greatly appreciate)
Thanks!
-
Canonical tag to what? Themselves? Or the page they should be? Are these pages unique by some URL variables only? If so, you can instruct Google to ignore specific get variables to resolve this issue but you would also want to fix your sitemap woes: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687
This is where it gets sticky, these pages are certainly not helping and not being indexed, Google Webmaster tools shows us that, but if you have this problem, how many other technical problems could the site have?
We can be almost certain you have some kind of panda filter but to diagnose it further we would need a link and access to analytics to determine what has gone wrong and provide more detailed guidance to resolve the issues.
This could be a red herring and your problem could be elsewhere but with no examples we can only give very general responses. If this was my site I would certainly look to identify the most likely issues and work through this in a pragmatic way to eliminate possible issues and look at other potentials.
My advice would be to have the site analysed by someone with distinct experience with Panda penalties who can give you specific feedback on the problems and provide guidance to resolve them.
If the URL is sensitive and can't be shared here, I can offer this service and am in the UK. I am sure can several other users at SEOMoz can also help. I know Marie Haynes offers this service as I am sure Ryan Kent could help also.
Shout if you have any questions or can provide more details (or a url).
-
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed answer.
We have many duplicate pages, but they all have canonical tags on them... shouldn't that be solving the problem. Would pages with the canonical tag be showing up here?
-
Yes, this can definitely cause problems. In fact this is a common footprint in sites hit by the panda updates.
It sound like you have some sort of canonical issue on the site: Multiple copies of each page are being crawled. Google is finding lots of copies of the same thing, crawling them but deciding that they are not sufficiently unique/useful to keep in the index. I've been working on a number of sites hit with the same issue and clean up can be a real pain.
The best starting point for reading is probably this article here on SEOmoz : http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content . That article includes some useful links on how to diagnose and solve the issues as well, so be sure to check out all the linked resources.
-
Hey Sarah
There are always a lot of moving parts when it comes to penalties but the very fact that you lost traffic on a known panda date really points towards this being a Panda style of penalty. Panda, is an algorithmic penalty so you will not receive any kind of notification in Webmaster Tools and likewise, a re-inclusion request will not help, you have to fix the problem to resolve the issues.
The not selected pages are likely a big part of your problem. Google classes not selected pages as follows:
"Not selected: Pages that are not indexed because they are substantially similar to other pages, or that have been redirected to another URL. More information."
If you have the best part of 3 million of these pages that are 'substantially similar' to other pages then there is every change that this is a very big part of your problem.
Obviously, there are a lot of moving parts to this. This sounds highly likely this is part of your problem and just think how this looks to Google. 2.6 million pages that are duplicated. It is a low quality signal, a possible attempt at manipulation or god knows what else but what we do know, is that is unlikely to be a strong result for any search users so those pages have been dropped.
What to do?
Well, firstly, fix your site map and sort out these duplication problems. It's hard to give specifics without a link to the site in question but just sort this out. Apply the noindex tag dynamically if needs be, remove these duplicates from the sitemap, heck, remove the sitemap alltogether for a while if needs be till it is fixed. Just sort out these issues one way or another.
Happy to give more help here if I can but would need a link or some such to advise better.
Resources
You asked for some links but I am not completely sure what to provide here without a link but let me have a shot and provide some general points:
1. Good General Panda Overview from Dr. Pete
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/fat-pandas-and-thin-content
2. An overview of canonicalisation form Google
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139066
3. A way to diagnose and hopefully recover from Panda from John Doherty at distilled.
http://www.distilled.net/blog/seo/beating-the-panda-diagnosing-and-rescuing-a-clients-traffic/
4. Index Status Overview from Google
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2642366
Summary
You have a serious problem here but hopefully one that can be resolved. Panda is a primarily focused at on page issues and this is an absolute doozy of an on page issue so sort it out and you should see a recovery. Keep in mind you have 75 times more problem pages than actual content pages at the moment in your site map so this may be the biggest case I have ever seen so I would be very keen to see how you get on and what happens when you resolve these issues as I am sure would the wider SEOMoz community.
Hope this helps & please fire over any questions.
Marcus
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Does redirecting from a "bad" domain "infect" the new domain?
Hi all, So a complicated question that requires a little background. I bought unseenjapan.com to serve as a legitimate news site about a year ago. Social media and content growth has been good. Unfortunately, one thing I didn't realize when I bought this domain was that it used to be a porn site. I've managed to muck out some of the damage already - primarily, I got major vendors like Macafee and OpenDNS to remove the "porn" categorization, which has unblocked the site at most schools & locations w/ public wifi. The sticky bit, however, is Google. Google has the domain filtered under SafeSearch, which means we're losing - and will continue to lose - a ton of organic traffic. I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this, and appeal the decision. Unfortunately, Google's Reconsideration Request form currently doesn't work unless your site has an existing manual action against it (mine does not). I've also heard such requests, even if I did figure out how to make them, often just get ignored for months on end. Now, I have a back up plan. I've registered unseen-japan.com, and I could just move my domain over to the new domain if I can't get this issue resolved. It would allow me to be on a domain with a clean history while not having to change my brand. But if I do that, and I set up 301 redirects from the former domain, will it simply cause the new domain to be perceived as an "adult" domain by Google? I.e., will the former URL's bad reputation carry over to the new one? I haven't made a decision one way or the other yet, so any insights are appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gaiaslastlaugh0 -
Why does Google display the home page rather than a page which is better optimised to answer the query?
I have a page which (I believe) is well optimised for a specific keyword (URL, title tag, meta description, H1, etc). yet Google chooses to display the home page instead of the page more suited to the search query. Why is Google doing this and what can I do to stop it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | muzzmoz0 -
Google Webmaster Tools -> Sitemap suddent "indexed" drop
Hello MOZ, We had an massive SEO drop in June due to unknown reasons and we have been trying to recover since then. I've just noticed this yesterday and I'm worried. See: http://imgur.com/xv2QgCQ Could anyone help by explaining what would cause this sudden drop and what does this drop translates to exactly? What is strange is that our index status is still strong at 310 pages, no drop there: http://imgur.com/a1sRAKo And when I do search on google site:globecar.com everything seems normal see: http://imgur.com/O7vPkqu Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GlobeCar0 -
"No index" page still shows in search results and paginated pages shows page 2 in results
I have "no index, follow" on some pages, which I set 2 weeks ago. Today I see one of these pages showing in Google Search Results. I am using rel=next prev on pages, yet Page 2 of a string of pages showed up in results before Page 1. What could be the issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Using "Read More" buttons as a tool to cram in Content
Hi Mozzers! Let's say our website is clean, professional, and minimalistic. Can we use a "read more" button that will expand the text on the page to increase the amount of content while (unless clicked) not impacting the appearance? I want to make sure I am not violating Google Webmaster's guidelines for "Hidden Text" Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W0 -
What is the proper syntax for rel="canonical" ??
I believe the proper syntax is like this [taken from the SEOMoz homepage]: However, one of the sites I am working on has all of their canonical tags set up like this: I should clarify, not all of their canonicals are identical to this one, they simply use this naming convention, which appears to be relative URLs instead of absolute. Doesn't the entire URL need to be in the tag? If that is correct, can you also provide me with an explanation that I can give to management please? They hate it when I say "Because I said so!" LOL
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Pagination: rel="next" rel="prev" in ?
With Google releasing that instructional on proper pagination I finally hunkered down and put in a site change request. I wanted the rel="next" and rel="prev" implemented… and it took two weeks for the guy to get it done. Brutal and painful. When I looked at the source it turned out he put it in the body above the pagination links… which is not what I wanted. I wanted them in the . Before I respond to get it properly implemented I want a few opinions - is it okay to have the rel="next" in the body? Or is it pretty much mandatory to put it in the head? (Normally, if I had full control over this site, I would just do it myself in 2 minutes… unfortunately I don't have that luxury with this site)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeTheBoss1 -
Do in page links pointing to the parent page make the page more relevant for that term?
Here's a technical question. Suppose I have a page relevant to the term "Mobile Phones". I have a piece of text, on that page talking about "mobile phones", and within that text is the term "cell phones". Now if I link the text "cell phones", to the page it is already placed on (ie the parent page) - will the page gain more relevancy for the term "cell phones"?? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James770