Removing blog posts with little/thin content
-
We've got quite a lot (I'd say 75%) of our blog posts which I'd consider as low quality. Short content (500 words or less) with few shares, no backlinks & comments; most of which gets 0-2 unique views a day (however combined this adds up).
Will removing these pages provide an SEO benefit greater than the reduction in traffic from the removal of these pages?
I've heard the likes of Neil Patel/Brian Dean suggest so, however I'm scared it will provide the opposite as less content is indexed and I'll actually see traffic fall.
Sam
-
Sam,
If you can safely assume that the pages are not hurting you, let them stay. It's certainly not ideal to have a website loaded with thin content. But, as is the case with most small sites, the posts are likely to do you more good than harm, provided you're willing to show them some attention.
Here's a good strategy to deploy:
-
Find the top 10 posts, as judged by analyzing GA and against the topics you hope to rank for, then beef them up with additional text and graphics.
-
Republish the posts, listing them as "updated."
-
Share the posts via social, using a meaningful quote from each piece to draw interest and invite re-shares.
-
Continue sharing the posts in the following weeks, each time with new text.
-
Gauge the performance of each social share, then use this information to create additional headlines for new posts, in addition to using it to inform you of what content might draw the most interest.
-
Repeat the process with the next 10 posts.
When you have thin, poorly performing content on your site, you aren't able to learn enough about what you're doing right to make a sound call. So to create more content, even "better" content, is likely a mistake. The wise approach is to use the content you have to investigate additional content ideas that would better serve your audience. Through social media and additional traffic to your site, you should be able to better discern what pieces of content will provide the greatest benefit in the future.
Additionally, the old content is likely to perform much better as well.
RS
-
-
It's difficult to talk in terms of truevalue. Someone of them may provide some value, but they pale in comparison to the new blog posts we have lined up and in my opinion bring the blog down; personally I wouldn't be sad to see them go.
I think it's time to exterminate.
Sam
-
Do the contents of these blog posts provide any value at all to the reader? Are they written well, and would you actually be sad to see them go? If yes, then refer to my previous response on re-purposing them to create even better content with more SEO value.
If not, and you're just worried about SEO, I'd say be rid of them. Based on those stats.
-
Thanks all, from my analysis:
In the last twelve months:
376 pages (although I'd estimate 70 of these aren't pages)
104 pages have bounce rate of 100%
307 pages have less than 20 unique views (for the previous 12 months) but the total count for this would be 1,374
which is a sizable sum.So the question is, is it worth pulling all the pages below 20 unique views and all the 100% bounce rate pages from the site? Will it actually benefit our SEO or am I just making work for myself?
I'd love to hear from people who've actually seen positive SEO movements after removing thin pages.
-
It's a waste of good content to remove it because it's considered "thin". In your position, I would consider grouping these under-performing/thin blog posts into topical themes, compile and update them to create "epic content" in the form of detailed guides or whatever is most suitable to the content. Add to the long post so that there's some logical structure to the combining of the little posts (and so it doesn't just read as if you stuck multiple posts together), then redirect the old post URLs to the newly created relevant posts. Not only do you have fresh content that could each provide a ton of value to your readers, but the SEO value of these so-called "epic" posts should in theory be more impactful.
Good luck, whatever you decide to do!
-
My rule of thumb would be:
Take all pages offline, which have under 30 organic sessions per month.
Like Dmitrii already mentioned, check your past data for these posts and have a look at average sessions durations / bounce rates / pages per sessions, with which you can valdiate the "quality of the traffic". If there are posts which have decent stats - don't take them offline. Rather update them or write a new blog post about the topic and make a redirect. In this case have a look in GWT for the actual serach queries (maybe you find some useful new insights).
-
Hi there.
Are those blogs ranking anywhat for any related keyphrases? At the same time, how about bounce rate and time on page for those 2 visits a day? Are you sure those visits are not bots/crawlers?
We have done similar reduction about 6 months ago and we haven't seen any drop in rankings. The share of traffic to thin pages was pretty small and bounce rate was high, as well as time on page was very short. So, why to have anything which doesn't do any good?
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
-
50% Drop in ALL Traffic Post June Update
We've had 50% drop in Google and Direct traffic post June Google update. Why would direct suddenly plummet as well? Could it be something with Google tag manager or our new cookie policy and cookie management system? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a disabled person and trying to figure out what is going on with our site
Reporting & Analytics | | inhouseninja0 -
Community Discussion - Do you think increasing word count helps content rank better?
In the online marketing community, there is a widespread belief that long-form content ranks better. In today's YouMoz post, Ryan Purthill shares how his research indicated 1,125 to be a magic number of sorts: The closer a post got to this word count, the better it ranked. Diminishing returns, however, were seen once a post exceeded 1,125 words. Does this jibe with your own data and experiences? Do you think increasing word count helps content rank better in general? What about for specific industries and types of content? Let's discuss!
Reporting & Analytics | | Christy-Correll6 -
How to find goo.gl/ URLs in Google Analytics
Hello! How does one go about finding the impact of goo.gl/ shortened URLs in Google Analytics? (I know I should be using Campaigns, but this was for an old project.) Thanks in advance! Erik
Reporting & Analytics | | SmileMoreSEO0 -
Which Algorithm Change Hurt the Site? A causation/correlation issue
The attached graph is from google analytics, a correlation of about 14 months of Organic Google visits with algo changes, data from moz naturally 🙂 Is there any way to tell from this which will have affected the site? for example #1 or #2 seems to be responsible for the first dip, but #4 seems to fix it and it broke around 6, or is the rise between 4 and 7 an anomaly and actually 1 or 2 caused a slip from when it was released all the way to when 7 was released. Sorry if the graph is a little cloak and dagger, that is partly because we don't have permissions to reveal much about the identity, and partly because we were trying to do a kind of double blind, separating the data from our biases 🙂 We can say though the different between the level at the start and end of the graph is at least 10,000 visits per day JarMzoK.png
Reporting & Analytics | | Fammy0 -
What is the best way to eliminate this specific image low lying content?
The site in question is www.homeanddesign.com where we are working on recovering from some big traffic loss. I finally have gotten the sites articles properly meta titled and descriptioned now I'm working on removing low lying content. The way there CMS is built, images have their own page (every one that's clickable). So this leads to a lot of thin content that I think needs to be removed from the index. Here is an example: http://www.homeanddesign.com/photodisplay.asp?id=3633 I'm considering the best way to remove it from the index but not disturb how users enjoy the site. What are my options? Here is what I'm thinking: add Disallow: /photodisplay to the robots.txt file See if there is a way to make a lightbox instead of a whole new page for images. But this still leaves me with 100s of pages with just an image on there with backlinks, etc. Add noindex tag to the photodisplay pages
Reporting & Analytics | | williammarlow0 -
Duplicate content and ways to deal with it.
Problem I queried back a year for the portal and we can see below that the SEO juice is split between the upper and lowercase. You can see the issue in the attached images. http://i.imgur.com/OXnPp.png Solutions: 1) Quick: Change the link on the pages above to be lowercase 2) Use canonical link tag http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps The tag is part of the HTML header on a web page, the same section you'd find the Title attribute and Meta Description tag. In fact, this tag isn't new, but like nofollow, simply uses a new rel parameter. For example: http://www.darden.virginia.edu/MBA" /> ''This would tell Yahoo!, Live & Google that the page in question should be treated as though it were a copy of the URL http://www.darden.virginia.edu/MBA and that all of the link & content metrics the engines apply should technically flow back to that URL.'' 3) See if there is any Google Analytics filters at the site level I can apply. I will check into this and get back to you. What do you all think?????? OXnPp voJdp.png OXnPp.png
Reporting & Analytics | | Darden0 -
Duplicate content? Split URLs? I don't know what to call this but it's seriously messing up my Google Analytics reports
Hi Friends, This issue is crimping my analytics efforts and I really need some help. I just don't trust the analytics data at this point. I don't know if my problem should be called duplicate content or what, but the SEOmoz crawler shows the following URLS (below) on my nonprofit's website. These are all versions of our main landing pages, and all google analytics data is getting split between them. For instance, I'll get stats for the /camp page and different stats for the /camp/ page. In order to make my report I need to consolidate the 2 sets of stats and re-do all the calculations. My CMS is looking into the issue and has supposedly set up redirects to the pages w/out the trailing slash, but they said that setting up the "ref canonical" is not relevant to our situation. If anyone has insights or suggestions I would be grateful to hear them. I'm at my wit's end (and it was a short journey from my wit's beginning ...) Thanks. URL www.enf.org/camp www.enf.org/camp/ www.enf.org/foundation www.enf.org/foundation/ www.enf.org/Garden www.enf.org/garden www.enf.org/Hante_Adventures www.enf.org/hante_adventures www.enf.org/hante_adventures/ www.enf.org/oases www.enf.org/oases/ www.enf.org/outdoor_academy www.enf.org/outdoor_academy/
Reporting & Analytics | | DMoff0 -
Duplicate Content From My Own Site?!
When I ran the SEO Moz report it says that I have a ton of duplicate content. The first one I looked at was my home page. http://www.kisswedding.com/ http://www.kisswedding.com/index.html http://kisswedding.com/index.html All of the above 3 have varying internal links, page authority, and link root domains. Only the first has any external links. All of the others only seem to have 1 other duplicate page. It's a difference between the www and the non-www version. I have a verified acct for www.kisswedding.com in google webmaster tools. The non-www version is in there too but has not been verified. Under settings for the verified account (www.kisswedding.com), "Don't set a preferred domain" is checked off. Is that my mistake. And if so, which should I select? The www version or the non-www version? Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | annasus0