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
-
Rel canonical tag from shopify page to wordpress site page
We have pages on our shopify site example - https://shop.example.com/collections/cast-aluminum-plaques/products/cast-aluminum-address-plaque That we want to put a rel canonical tag on to direct to our wordpress site page - https://www.example.com/aluminum-plaques/ We have links form the wordpress page to the shop page, and over time ahve found that google has ranked the shop pages over the wp pages, which we do not want. So we want to put rel canonical tags on the shop pages to say the wp page is the authority. I hope that makes sense, and I would appreciate your feeback and best solution. Thanks! Is that possible?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shabbirmoosa0 -
What to do with large number of old/outdated pages?
Are we redoing a large portion of our site (not ecommerce). We have a large number of pages (about 2000 indexed pages, out of about 3000) that have been forgetten about until recently, are very outdated, don't drive any traffic (according to Google Analytics) But they are ranking very well for the targeting keyword (#3 organic for most). What should I do with those pages? Could you give any guidance on whether we should or what affect it might have one the rest of the website if we delete those pages or simply 301 redirecting all those pages to the home page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aphoontrakul0 -
Risk Using "Nofollow" tag
I have a lot of categories (like e-commerce sites) and many have page 1 - 50 for each category (view all not possible). Lots of the content on these pages are present across the web on other websites (duplicate stuff). I have added quality unique content to page 1 and added "noindex, follow" to page 2-50 and rel=next prev tags to the pages. Questions: By including the "follow" part, Google will read content and links on pages 2-50 and they may think "we have seen this stuff across the web….low quality content and though we see a noindex tag, we will consider even page 1 thin content, because we are able to read pages 2-50 and see the thin content." So even though I have "noindex, follow" the 'follow' part causes the issue (in that Google feels it is a lot of low quality content) - is this possible and if I had added "nofollow" instead that may solve the issue and page 1 would increase chance of looking more unique? Why don't I add "noindex, nofollow" to page 2 - 50? In this way I ensure Google does not read the content on page 2 - 50 and my site may come across as more unique than if it had the "follow" tag. I do understand that in such case (with nofollow tag on page 2-50) there is no link juice flowing from pages 2 - 50 to the main pages (assuming there are breadcrumbs or other links to the indexed pages), but I consider this minimal value from an SEO perspective. I have heard using "follow" is generally lower risk than "nofollow" - does this mean a website with a lot of "noindex, nofollow" tags may hurt the indexed pages because it comes across as a site Google can't trust since 95% of pages have such "noindex, nofollow" tag? I would like to understand what "risk" factors there may be. thank you very much
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Google's Stance on "Hidden" Content
Hi, I'm aware Google doesn't care if you have helpful content you can hide/unhide by user interaction. I am also aware that Google frowns upon hiding content from the user for SEO purposes. We're not considering anything similar to this. The issue is, we will be displaying only a part of our content to the user at a time. We'll load 3 results on each page initially. These first 3 results are static, meaning on each initial page load/refresh, the same 3 results will display. However, we'll have a "Show Next 3" button which replaces the initial results with the next 3 results. This content will be preloaded in the source code so Google will know about it. I feel like Google shouldn't have an issue with this since we're allowing the user action to cycle through all results. But I'm curious, is it an issue that the user action does NOT allow them to see all results on the page at once? I am leaning towards no, this doesn't matter, but would like some input if possible. Thanks a lot!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kirmeliux0 -
I've seen and heard alot about city-specific landing pages for businesses with multiple locations, but what about city-specific landing pages for cities nearby that you aren't actually located in? Is it ok to create landing pages for nearby cities?
I asked here https://www.google.com/moderator/#7/e=adbf4 but figured out ask the Moz Community also! Is it actually best practice to create landing pages for nearby cities if you don't have an actual address there? Even if your target customers are there? For example, If I am in Miami, but have a lot of customers who come from nearby cities like Fort Lauderdale is it okay to create those LP's? I've heard this described as best practice, but I'm beginning to question whether Google sees it that way.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley2 -
"Authorship is not working for this webpage" Can a company G+ page be both Publisher AND Author?
When using the Google Structured Data testing tool I get a message saying....... **Authorship Testing Result - **Authorship is not working for this webpage. Here are the results of the data for the page http://www.webjobz.com/jobs/ Authorship Email Verification Please enter a Google+ profile to see if the author has successfully verified an email address on the domain www.webjobz.com to establish authorship for this webpage. Learn more <form id="email-verification-form" action="http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets" method="GET" data-ved="0CBMQrh8">Verify Authorship</form> Email verification has not established authorship for this webpage.Email address on the webjobz.com domain has been verified on this profile: YesPublic contributor-to link from Google+ profile to webjobz.com: YesAutomatically detected author name on webpage: Not Found.Publisher | Publisher markup is verified for this page. |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Webjobz
| Linked Google+ page: | https://plus.google.com/106894524985345373271 | Question - Can this company Google plus account "Webjobz" be both the publisher AND the author? Can I use https://plus.google.com/106894524985345373271 as the author of this and all other pages on our site? 98emVv70 -
Fluctuating Rankings on "difficult" keywords
Hi guys, I have a client who wants to rank well for two very "difficult" keywords and eight easier ones. The easy ones are "treadmills + city" and the difficult ones are "treadmills" and "treadmill". We have got great traction on the "+city" keywords and he now ranks on page one for all those. However, we have noticed that although he ranks on page 2-3 for "treadmill" treadmills", those rankings fluctuate widely day to day. Rankings for the "+city" versions are stable, a rising slowly as I would expect. Rankings for the difficult keywords can be 235 one day, 32 the next week, 218 the day after that, then stable at 30ish for a week, then fluctuation again. I know Google update every day, but what are the likely causes of the easier keywords being stable, while the harder ones fluctuate? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevedeane0 -
Is the Penguin algorithmic penalty on a page basis or a site basis?
Just wondering if there has been any clarification of whether the Penguin algorithmic penalty is on a Page basis or a Site basis? In other words, is it all or nothing?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | darkgreenguy0