Log files vs. GWT: major discrepancy in number of pages crawled
-
Following up on this post, I did a pretty deep dive on our log files using Web Log Explorer. Several things have come to light, but one of the issues I've spotted is the vast difference between the number of pages crawled by the Googlebot according to our log files versus the number of pages indexed in GWT. Consider:
- Number of pages crawled per log files: 2993
- Crawl frequency (i.e. number of times those pages were crawled): 61438
- Number of pages indexed by GWT: 17,182,818 (yes, that's right - more than 17 million pages)
We have a bunch of XML sitemaps (around 350) that are linked on the main sitemap.xml page; these pages have been crawled fairly frequently, and I think this is where a lot of links have been indexed. Even so, would that explain why we have relatively few pages crawled according to the logs but so many more indexed by Google?
-
I'll reserve my answer until you hear from your dev team. A massive site for sure.
One other question/comment: just because there are 13 million URLs in your sitemap doesn't necessarily mean there are that many pages on the site. We could be talking about URI versus URL.
I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by that, but for others reading this who may not know, URI is the unique Web address of any given resource, while a URL is generally used to reference a complete Web page. An example of this would be an image. While it certainly has its own unique address on the Web, it most often does not have it's very own "page" on a Website (although there are certainly exceptions to that).
So, I could see a site having millions of URIs, but very few sites have 17 million+ pages. To put it into perspective, Alibaba and IBM roughly show 6-7 million pages indexed in Google. Walmart has between 8-9 million.
So where I'm headed in my thinking is major duplicate content issues...but, as I said, I'm going to reserve further comment until you hear back from your developers.
This is a very interesting thread so I want to know more. Cheers!
-
Waiting on an answer from our dev team on that now. In the meantime, here's what I can tell you:
-
Number submitted in XML sitemaps per GWT: 13,882,040 (number indexed: 13,204,476, or 95.1%)
-
Number indexed: 17,182,818
-
Difference: 3,300,778
-
Number of URLs throwing 404 errors: 2,810,650
-
2,810,650 / 3,300,778 = 85%
I'm sure the ridiculous number of 404s on site (I mentioned them in a separate post here) are at least partially to blame. How much, though? I know that Google says that 404s don't hurt SEO, but the fact that the number of 404s is 85% of the difference between the number indexed and submitted is not exactly a coincidence.
(Apologies if these questions seem a bit dense or elementary. I've done my share of SEO, but never on a site this massive.)
-
-
Hi. Interesting question. You had me at "log files."
So before I give a longer, more detailed answer, I have a follow up question: Does your site really have 17+ million pages?
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
-
Will redirecting a logged in user from a public page to an equivalent private page (not visible to google) impact SEO?
Hi, We have public pages that can obviously be visited by our registered members. When they visit these public pages + they are logged in to our site, we want to redirect them to the equivalent (richer) page on the private site e.g. a logged in user visiting /public/contentA will be redirected to /private/contentA Note: Our /public pages are indexed by Google whereas /private pages are excluded. a) will this affect our SEO? b) if not, is 302 the best http status code to use? Cheers
Technical SEO | | bernienabo0 -
Canonicalisation and Dynamic Pages
We have an e-commerce single page app hosted at https://www.whichledlight.com and part of this site is our search results page (http://www.whichledlight.com/t/gu10-led-bulbs?fitting_eq=GU10). To narrow down products on the results we make heavy use of query parameters. From an SEO perspective we are telling GoogleBot to not index pages that include these query parameters to prevent duplicate content issues and to not index pages where the combination of query parameters has resulted in no results being returned. The only exception to this is the page parameter. We are posting here to check our homework so to speak. Does the above sound sensible? Although we have told GoogleBot to not index these pages, Moz will still crawl them (to the best of my knowledge), so we will continue to see crawl errors within our Moz reports where in fact these issues don't exist. Is this true? Is there anyway to make Moz ignore pages with certain query parameters? Any other suggestions to improve the SEO of our results pages is most appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | TrueluxGroup0 -
Removing a large number of unnecessary pages from a site
Hi all, I got a big problem with my website. I have a lot of page, duplicate page made from various combinations of selects, and for all this duplicate content we've be hit by a panda update 2 years ago. I don't want to bring new content an all of these pages, about 3.000.000, because most of them are unnecessary. Google indexed all of them (3.000.000), and I want to redirect the pages that I don't need anymore to the most important ones. My question, is there any problem in how google will see this change, because after this it will remain only 5000-6000 relevant pages?
Technical SEO | | Silviu0 -
HTTP Status showing up in opensiteexplorer top pages as blocked by robot.txt file
I am trying to find an answer to this question it has alot of url on this page with no data when i go into the data source and search for noindex or robot.txt but the site is visible in the search engines ?
Technical SEO | | ReSEOlve0 -
Can Google show the hReview-Aggregate microformat in the SERPs on a product page if the reviews themselves are on a separate page?
Hi, We recently changed our eCommerce site structure a bit and separated our product reviews onto a a different page. There were a couple of reasons we did this : We used pagination on the product page which meant we got duplicate content warnings. We didn't want to show all the reviews on the product page because this was bad for UX (and diluted our keywords). We thought having a single page was better than paginated content, or at least safer for indexing. We found that Googlebot quite often got stuck in loops and we didn't want to bury the reviews way down in the site structure. We wanted to reduce our bounce rate a little, so having a different reviews page could help with this. In the process of doing this we tidied up our microformats a bit too. The product page used to have to three main microformats; hProduct hReview-Aggregate hReview The product page now only has hProduct and hReview-Aggregate (which is now nested inside the hProduct). This means the reviews page has hReview-Aggregate and hReviews for each review itself. We've taken care to make sure that we're specifying that it's a product review and the URL of that product. However, we've noticed over the past few weeks that Google has stopped feeding the reviews into the SERPs for product pages, and is instead only feeding them in for the reviews pages. Is there any way to separate the reviews out and get Google to use the Microformats for both pages? Would using microdata be a better way to implement this? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | OptiBacUK
James0 -
Robots.txt file
How do i get Google to stop indexing my old pages and start indexing my new pages even months down the line? Do i need to install a Robots.txt file on each page?
Technical SEO | | gimes0 -
Is it bad to have your pages as .php pages?
Hello everyone, Is it bad to have your website pages indexed as .php? For example, the contact page is site.com/contact.php and not /contact. Does this affect your SEO rankings in any way? Is it better to have your pages without the extension? Also, if I'm working with a news site and the urls are dynamic for every article (ie site.com/articleid=2323.) Should I change all of those dynamic urls to static? Thank You.
Technical SEO | | BruLee0