Removing duplicated content using only the NOINDEX in large scale (80% of the website).
-
Hi everyone,
I am taking care of the large "news" website (500k pages), which got massive hit from Panda because of the duplicated content (70% was syndicated content). I recommended that all syndicated content should be removed and the website should focus on original, high quallity content.
However, this was implemented only partially. All syndicated content is set to NOINDEX (they thing that it is good for user to see standard news + original HQ content). Of course it didn't help at all. No change after months. If I would be Google, I would definitely penalize website that has 80% of the content set to NOINDEX a it is duplicated. I would consider this site "cheating" and not worthy for the user.
What do you think about this "theory"? What would you do?
Thank you for your help!
-
-
it has been almost a year now from the massive hit. after that, there were also some smaller hits
-
we are putting effort into improvements. that is quite frustrating for me, because I believe that our effort is demolished by old duplicated content (that creates 80% of the website :-))
Yeah, we will need to take care about the link-mess...
Thank you! -
-
Yeah, this strategy will be definitely part of the guidelines for the editors.
One last question: do you know some good resources I can use as an inspiration?
Thank you so much..
-
We deleted thousands of pages every few months.
Before deleting anything we identified valuable pages that continued to receive traffic from other websites or from search. These were often updated and kept on the site. Everything else was 301 redirected to the "news homepage" of the site. This was not a news site, it was a very active news section on an industry portal site.
You have set 410 for those pages and remove all internal links to them and google was ok with that?
Our goal was to avoid internal links to pages that were going to be deleted. Our internal "story recommendation" widgets would stop showing links to pages after a certain length of time. Our periodic purges were done after that length of time.
We never used hard coded links in stories to pages that were subject to being abandoned. Instead we simply linked to category pages where something relevant would always be found.
Develop a strategy for internal linking that will reduce site maintenance and focus all internal links to pages that are permanently maintained.
-
Yaikes! Will you guys still pay for it if it's removed? If so, then combining below comments with my thoughts - I'd delete it, since it's old and not time relevant.
-
Yeah, paying ... we actually pay for this content (earlier management decisions :-))
-
EGOL your insights are very appreciated :-)!
I agree with you. Makes total sense.
So you didn't experience any problems removing outdated content (or "content with no traffic value") from your website? You have set 410 for those pages and remove all internal links to them and google was ok with that?
Redirecting useless content - you mean set 301 to the most relevant page that is bringing traffic?
Thank you sir
-
But I still miss the point of paying for the content that is not accessible from SE
- "paying"?
Is my understanding right, that if I would set canonical for these duplicates, Google has no reason to show this pages in the SERP?
- correct
-
HI Dimitrii,
thank you very much for your opinion. The idea of canonical links is very interesting. We may try that in the "first" phase. But I still miss the point of paying for the content that is not accessible from SE.
Is my understanding right, that if I would set canonical for these duplicates, Google has no reason to show this pages in the SERP?
-
Just seeing the other responses. Agree with what EGOL mentions. A content audit would be even better to see if there was any value at all on those pages (GA traffic, links, etc). Odds are though that there was not any and you already killed all of it with the noindex tag in place.
-
Couple of things here.
-
If a second Panda update has not occurred since the changes that were made then you may not get credit for the noindexed content. I don't think this is "cheating" as with the noindex, it just told Google to take 350K of its pages out of the index. The noindex is one of the best ways to get your content out of Google's index.
-
If you have not spent time improving the non-syndicated content then you are missing the more important part and that is to improve the quality of the content that you have.
A side point to consider here, is your crawl budget. I am assuming that the site still internally links to these 350K pages and so users and bots will go to them and have to process etc. This is mostly a waste of time. As all of these pages are out of Google's index thanks to the noindex tag, why not take out all internal links to those pages (i.e. from sitemaps, paginated index pages, menus, internal content) so that you can have the user and Google focus on the quality content that is left over. I would then also 404/410 all those low quality pages as they are now out of Google's index and not linked internally. Why maintain the content?
-
-
Good point! News gotta be new
-
If there are 500,000 pages of "news" then a lot of that content is "history" instead of "news". Visitors are probably not consuming it. People are probably not searching for it. And actively visited pages on the site are probably not linking to it.
So, I would use analytics to determine if these "history" pages are being viewed, are pulling in much traffic, have very many links, and I would delete and redirect them if they are not important to the site any longer. This decision is best made at the page level.
For "unique content" pages that appear only on my site, I would assess them at regular intervals to determine which ones are pulling in traffic and which ones are not. Some sites place news in folders according to their publication dates and that facilitates inspecting old content for its continued value. These pages can then be abandoned and redirected once their content is stale and not being consumed. Again, this can best be done at the page level.
I used to manage a news section and every few months we would assess, delete and redirect, to keep the weight of the site as low as possible for maximum competitiveness.
-
Hi there.
NOINDEX !== no crawling. and surely it doesn't equal NOFOLLOW. what you probably should be looking at is canonical links.
My understanding is (and i can be completely wrong) that when you get hit by Panda for duplicate content and then try to recover, Google checks your website for the same duplicate content - it's still crawlable, all the links are still "followable", it's still scraped content, you aren't telling crawlers that you took it from somewhere else (by canonicalizing), it's just not displayed in SERPs. And yes, 80% of content being noindex probably doesn't help either.
So, I think that what you need to do is either remove that duplicate content whatsoever, or use canonical links to originals or (bad idea, but would work) block all those links in robots.txt (at least this way those pages will become uncrawlable whatsoever). All this still is unreputable techniques though, kinda like polishing the dirt.
Hope this makes sense.
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 can I stop serious traffic lost on my website
I need help resolving technical SEO issues on my website CamRojud. I have tried allSEO tactics but no improvement yet. Can someone in the forum guide me through please.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Dawodus0 -
I would like opinions on Brian Dean's training courses and his advice -- is it useful?
I would like opinions on Brian Dean's training courses and his advice -- has anyone used it successfully? Is it worth the cost? And useful?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | marketingdepartment.ch1 -
Got Google Manual penalty full Spam on my website
Here are Moz Metrics: http://prntscr.com/as3fp6 Site Url: www.financialprospect.com DA- 40 PA- 48 Spam Score - 0 RD- 68 Links No Loss in Backlink Profile I think my site is having much more spun content so can you suggest me the ways to re-index my site? How can i get my site back to google? Can you suggest any tool which give number of links already spun and then we may delete those posts. Looking for positive reply...!!!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | morisshibu1 -
Duplicate categories how to make sure I don't get penalized for this
Hi there How would I go about fixing duplicate categories? My products sell in multiple category areas and some overlap the other - how can I go about making sure that I don't get penalised for this? Each category and content is unique but my advisors offer different tools and insights.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
Why my banklinks haven't been removed?
Hi Everyone So I had over 1500 backlinks in under month, and i found out it was coming from a directory. I asked them to delist me from the directory, but it still shows i have these links pointing to me. How do I get completely take them down? Also I contacted myseotools who I use and they said "It is most likely because you have some dynamic pages that can create thousands of various URLs. Maybe a directory? This is not an issue with our software as it comes directly from ahrefs. Try going to ahrefs.com and enter your domain to see where all the links are coming from." I proceeded to do this and its definely coming from that 1 directory. They said they have removed me from they directory, but my question is I can still see I have 1500 backlinks coming from their domain? Does this take time to clear? Or have I missed something in the process?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
Would it be a good idea to duplicate a website?
Hello, here is the situation: let's say we have a website www.company1.com which is 1 of 3 main online stores catering to a specific market. In an attempt to capture a larger market share, we are considering opening a second website, say www.company2.com. Both these websites have a different URL, but offer the same products for sale to the same clientele. With this second website, the theory is instead of operating 1 of 3 stores, we now operate 2 of 4. We see 2 ways of doing this: we launch www.company2.com as a copy of www.company1.com. we launch www.company2.com as a completely different website. The problem I see with either of these approaches is duplicate content. I think the duplicate content issue would be even more or a problem with the first approach where the entire site is mostly a duplicate. With the second approach, I think the duplicate content issue can be worked around by having completely different product pages and overall website structure. Do you think either of these approaches could result in penalties by the search engines? Furthermore, we all know that higher ranking/increased traffic can be achieved though high quality unique content, social media presence, on-going link-building and so on. Now assuming we have a fixed amount of manpower to provide for these tasks; do you think we have better odds of increasing our overall traffic by sharing the manpower on 2 websites, or putting it all behind a single one? Thanks for your help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | yacpro130 -
Help required as difficulty removing Google algorithmic penalty
I am not an SEO expert but I am trying to recover my company's ranking on Google. We are a UK based baby shower company. Been established since 2003. We have used SEO companies a few years ago. On September 28th 2012 our rankings in Google dropped significantly on certain landing pages, others like our baby shower gifts page has remained position 1 for UK Google searches . Bing and Yahoo were unaffected. Searches for baby shower and baby shower decorations has gone from position 1 or 2 (behind wikipedia ) to these 2 landing pages being unranked in Google. I have for the first time ever gone through our back links, tried to locate bad or low quality links, emailed where possible, and set up in webmaster tools a dissavow file ( currently not acted upon by Google). I have also amended the text in the baby shower department so it does not read as keyword stuffed. It has been two and a half months now and sales has dropped significantly and me and the staff are getting very concerned. Our site is www.showermybaby.co.uk . We have not received a manual penalty. Any suggestions or help in removing this Google penalty would be greatly appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | postagestamp0 -
Removing a sitewide backlink without damaging the domain
Hello, I have a client that partnered up with a person in his field 4 years ago and got him to place a sitewide link to his site, high domain authority. Now with recent developments this site owner wants to take off these links so that they won't leak pagerank. The person insists in taking all the links off with his next website redesign. I have found several years ago in my own SEO efforts that removal of a sitewide link actually damages the domain. Is this still true? Should he ask for a nofollow or will that change damage our domain as well? Is there any way he can not take a huge hit on this? He doesn't mind the loss of links, he just don't want to be damaged. Please only post if you have recent experience with sitewide link removal, or if you have something related or a solution.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0