Sudden Increase In Number of Pages Indexed By Google Webmaster When No New Pages Added
-
Greetings MOZ Community:
On June 14th Google Webmaster tools indicated an increase in the number of indexed pages, going from 676 to 851 pages. New pages had been added to the domain in the previous month. The number of pages blocked by robots increased at that time from 332 (June 1st) to 551 June 22nd), yet the number of indexed pages still increased to 851.
The following changes occurred between June 5th and June 15th:
-A new redesigned version of the site was launched on June 4th, with some links to social media and blog removed on some pages, but with no new URLs added. The design platform was and is Wordpress.
-Google GTM code was added to the site.
-An exception was made by our hosting company to ModSecurity on our server (for i-frames) to allow GTM to function.
In the last ten days my web traffic has decline about 15%, however the quality of traffic has declined enormously and the number of new inquiries we get is off by around 65%. Click through rates have declined from about 2.55 pages to about 2 pages.
Obviously this is not a good situation.
My SEO provider, a reputable firm endorsed by MOZ, believes the extra 175 pages indexed by Google, pages that do not offer much content, may be causing the ranking decline.
My developer is examining the issue. They think there may be some tie in with the installation of GTM. They are noticing an additional issue, the sites Contact Us form will not work if the GTM script is enabled. They find it curious that both issues occurred around the same time.
Our domain is www.nyc-officespace-leader. Does anyone have any idea why these extra pages are appearing and how they can be removed? Anyone have experience with GTM causing issues with this?
Thanks everyone!!!
Alan -
Yes, and I appreciate it!
Alan -
I did what I asked you to do.
-
-
-
- in my first post and repeated frequently.
-
-
-
-
Hi Egol:
How did you locate this duplicate or re-published content?
Obviously what you have pointed out is a major source of concern so I ran Copyscape search this afternoon for duplicate content and did not locate any the URLs you mention in the "this", "this" link above. It appears you entered the URL of the blog post in Google's search bar. Would that work? This method would be pretty slow going with 600 URLs.
Thanks,
Alan -
Those are the 448 URLs from your website that have been filtered.
You should find garbage in them like shown below.
Have you done what I have suggested three times above? Do that if you want to identify the problem pages.
-
www.nyc-officespace-leader.com/wp-content/plugins/...
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.
-
www.nyc-officespace-leader.com/wp-content/plugins/...
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.
-
www.nyc-officespace-leader.com/wp-content/plugins/...
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.
-
-
Hi Egol:
Thanks for the suggestion.
When I click on _ repeat the search with the omitted results included _I get 448 results not the entire 859 results. Seems very strange. Some of these URLS have light content but I don't believe they are dups. I don't see any content outside our website when I click this.
Am I doing something wrong? I would think the total of 859 would appear not 447 URLs.
Thanks!!
Alan -
I don't know. You should ask someone who knows a lot about canonicalization.
Did you drill down through all of those indexed pages to see if you can identify all of them?
I've suggested it twice.
-
Hi Egol:
In the content of launching an upgraded site, could the canonicalization have implemented incorrectly? That could account for 175 pages sudden new content as the thin content has been there for some time.
I am particularly suspicious regarding canonicalization as there was an issue involving multi page URLs of property listings when the site was migrated from Drupal to Wordpress last Summer.
Thoughts?
Thanks, Alan
-
Apparently infitter24.rssing.com/chan-13023009/all is poaching my content, taking my original content and adding it to there site. I am not quiet sure what to do about that.
You can have an attorney demand that they stop, you can file DMCA complaints. Be careful
**However it does not explain the sudden appearance of the 175 pages on Googles index **
-
Do this query: site:www.nyc-officespace-leader.com
-
Start drilling down the SERPs. One page at a time. Look for content that you didn't make. Look for duplicates.
-
Get a spreadsheet that has all of your URLs. Drill down through the SERPs checking every one of them. Can you account for your pagination. You have a lot of it and that type of page is usually rubbish in the index. Combine, canonicalize, or get rid of them.
-
-
Hi Egol:
Thanks so much for taking the time for your thorough response!!
Apparently infitter24.rssing.com/chan-13023009/all is poaching my content, taking my original content and adding it to there site. I am not quiet sure what to do about that.
You have pointed out something very useful and I appreciate it and will act upon it. However it does not explain the sudden appearance of the 175 pages on Googles index that did not appear at the end of May and somehow coincided with uploading of the new version of our website in early June. Any ideas???
Thanks,
Alan -
-
Do this query: site:www.nyc-officespace-leader.com
-
Start drilling down the SERPs. One page at a time. Look for content that you didn't make. Look for duplicates.
-
When you drill down about 44 pages you will find this...
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 440 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.The bad stuff is usually behind that link. Google doesn't want to show that stuff to people. It could be thin, it could be duplicate, it could be spammy, they just might not like it.
- Find out what is in there.
Possible problems that I see....
I see dupe content like this and this. Either your guys are grabbin' somebodyelse's content or they are grabbin' yours. Can get you in trouble with Panda. You need original and unique. Anything that is not original and unique should be deleted, noindexed or rewritten.
A lot of these pages are really skimpy. Think content can get you into trouble with Panda. Anything that is skimpy should be deleted, noindexed or beefed up.
I see multiple links to tags on lots of these posts. That can cause duplicate content problems.
The tag pages are paginated with just a few pages on each. These can generate extra pages that are low value, suck up your linkjuice or compound duplicate content problems.
You have archive pages, and category pages and more pagination problems.
-
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
-
How often does the indexing take place?
Hi there, I am currently looking at one of my campaigns and have noticed that since i last checked on the 31st Jan there have been no change in analytics despite me having done work on the campaign itself. I saw in the external links section that it said "38 down since last index" and I was just wondering how often the index takes place. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks.
Reporting & Analytics | | VoodooCreativeLtd0 -
Page Performance
Not long ago, I had a couple of peers asking why I was using sessions to evaluate page performance. They said it wasn't a good metric for evaluating a single page because it only looked at how many site visitors began their journey through you site form that page. They were trying to convert me over to pageviews, which they said was a superior metric because it show you every time that page had been loaded and therefore provided better insight. Moz uses sessions on their landing page report. Is this because it's an SEO tool, so all they are concerned with is how individual URLs attract site traffic? Signed, Confused in California
Reporting & Analytics | | PGD20110 -
Increase in Direct traffic, drop in Google traffic, after updating Google Analytics settings.
I made some changes to our Google Analytics property settings (see notes in screenshot). As a result, there was an equal drop in Google traffic and increase in Direct traffic. Has anyone else seen something like this before? I'm wondering if I should revert. jE7buO6
Reporting & Analytics | | vcj0 -
Conflicting data in Google Analytics
Hi Guys I've been looking at the data for a client in Google analytics and I was wondering if anyone knows why some of the data doesn't tally up. In my case its the following: Under Aquisition
Reporting & Analytics | | Relative
No of Sessions for a Keyword shown in Organic Search tab (compared to)
No of Clicks for a Query in the Search Engine Optimisation tab For example, for a brand term, Google are showing 17 Sessions in Organic Search.
For the same term Google are showing 90 Clicks in the Queries section of Search Engine Optimisation OK, we know that Google are a little cloak and dagger regarding keyword data but surely Sessions and Clicks for the same keyword should be identical unless I'm missing something.0 -
Organic Traffic Drop and Rank Increase After Video Thumbnail added
So my company has created a large amount of videos and I took a couple of them and created a test video sitemap to see what effect adding a video thumbnail/rich snippet to the SERPs would be. It worked on one page and gained 2 spots (position 6 to 4) for the highest keyword, but traffic didn't increase too much. Then a week later I tested it with the page that we get the most organic traffic for, which is ranking for a very big keyword. It worked and gained a bit of ranking, but traffic decreased 50% ever since according to Google Analytics. It seems to me that the traffic from users clicking on the video thumbnail is not be tracked as google / organic even though it lands them on the intended page/doesn't redirect anywhere else. I've looked to see if traffic to this page increased overall to see if it was being tracked via a referral or as something else, but couldn't find any traffic discrepancy. The only thing I did find is that impressions under SEO > Landing Pages > Video Property increased, but this could be from the page ranking in the Video SERPs now. Has anyone experienced a similar situation? Do you think having a video snippet could be that big of a turn off for customers that people just aren't clicking like they used to? I don't think so, that's why I'm leaning towards a tracking discrepancy in Google Analytics.
Reporting & Analytics | | OfficeFurn0 -
Google Tag Assistant for Chrome
I'm using the Google Tag Assistant for Chrome, and I noticed something really weird. No matter what pages I look at, the same two GA tags show up. It's weird. You can see the tag that is "working", and then there are two repeats. For example, when I look at this page, I see the GA tag that is working and then all the remarketing tags. Then I see UA-36732895-1 repeated twice. Anyone have any idea what this is? Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | PGD20110 -
Google Internal Search Tracking Kaput :-(
Buongiorno from cloudy & overcast Wetherby UK... On this site http://www.dartexcoatings.com/ I configured Google to tracdk internal search & heres how - http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/zymurgy_bucket/internal-search-jinx_zpscf86b49d.jpg But internal search data is not pulling through 😞 How can i fix this please.
Reporting & Analytics | | Nightwing
Thanks,
David0 -
Google Analytics - my continuing adventures
Hello I'd appreciate views of the various metrics I'm struggling with in GA: I've run 2 different reports that provide 2 different outputs. 1. In Standard Reporting you can report in Traffic Sources on Organic Search by Keyword, which returns the number of Visits. 2. In Custom Reporting you can define the Keyword dimension and the Organic Searches metric, which returns the number of Organic Searches. This returns 2 different numbers. For example, over the last month for a given term report 1 returns 77,306 visits whilst report 2 returns 52,589 organic searches. I have found some definitions: "Visits represent the number of individual sessions initiated by all the visitors to your site." "Organic Searches: number of organic searches that happened within a session. This metric is search engine agnostic." My understanding of these definitions is that report 2 should return a larger value than report 1 rather than what is happening (i.e. report 1 returns a greater value than report 2). Does anyone have a greater understanding of what these mean and relate to? Does anyone have any views on which metric is more useful? Thanks Neil
Reporting & Analytics | | mccormackmorrison0