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
-
Third part http links on the page source: Social engineering content warning from Google
Hi, We have received "Social engineering content" warning from Google and one of our important page and it's internal pages have been flagged as "Deceptive site ahead". We wonder what's the reason behind this as Google didn't point exactly to the specific part of the page which made us look so to the Google. We don't employ any such content on the page and the content is same for many months. As our site is WP hosted, we used a WordPress plugin for this page's layout which injected 2 http (non-https) links in our page code. We suspect if this is the reason behind this? Any ideas? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz1 -
Canonical tags being direct to "page=all" pages for an Ecommerce website
I find it alarming that my client has canonical tags pointing to "page=all" product gallery pages. Some of these product gallery pages have over 100 products and I think this could effect load time, especially for mobile. I would like to get some insight from the community on this, thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JMSCC0 -
On-site duplication working - not penalised - any ideas?
I've noticed a website that has been set up with many virtually identical pages. For example many of them have the same content (minimal text, three video clips) and only the town name varies. Surely this is something that Google would be against? However the site is consistently ranking near the top of Google page 1, e.g. http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-guildford.html for "magician Guildford", http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-ascot.html for "magician Ascot" and so on (even when searching without localisation or personalisation). For years I've heard SEO experts say that this sort of thing is frowned on and that they will get penalised, but it never seems to happen. I guess there must be some other reason that this site is ranked highly - any ideas? The content is massively duplicated and the blog hasn't been updated since 2012 but it is ranking above many established older sites that have lots of varied content, good quality backlinks and regular updates. Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MagicianUK0 -
80% of traffic lost over night, Google Penalty?
Hi all.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Hemjakt
I have a website called Hemjakt (http://www.hemjakt.se/) which is a search engine for real estate currently only available on the Swedish market. The application crawl real estate websites and collect all estates on a single searchable application. The site has been released for a few months and have seen a steady growth since release, increasing by 20% weekly up to ~900 visitors per day. 3 days ago, over night, I lost 80% of my traffic. Instead of 900 visitors per day I'm at ~100 visitors per day and when I search for long, specific queries such as "Åsgatan 15, Villa 12 rum i Alsike, Knivsta" ( <adress><house type=""><rooms><area> <city>), I'm now only found on the fifth page. I suspect that I have become a subject of a Google Penalty. How to get out of this mess?</city></rooms></house></adress> Just like all search engines or applications, I do crawl other websites and scrape their content. My content is ~90% unique from the source material and I do add user value by giving them the possibility to compare houses, get ton of more data to compare pricing and history, giving them extra functionalities that source site do not offer and so on. My analytics data show good user engagement. Here is one example of a Source page and a page at my site:
Source: http://www.hemnet.se/bostad/villa-12rum-alsike-knivsta-kommun-asgatan-15-6200964
My Site: http://www.hemjakt.se/bostad/55860-asgatan-15/ So: How do I actually confirm that this is the reason I lost my traffic? When I search for my branded query, I still get result. Also I'm still indexed by Google. If I am penalized. I'm not attempting to do anything Black Hat and I really believe that the app gives a lot of value to the users. What tweaks or suggestions do you have to changes of the application, to be able to continue running the service in a way that Google is fine with?0 -
Is it a duplicate content ?
Hi Please check this link : http : // www . speedguide . net/news/yahoo-acquires-email-management-app-xobni-5252 it's a post where the admin just write the first 200-300 words and then insert the "read more here" which links to the original post This make the website active as the admin always add new content but is this not against google rules as it's a duplicate content ?? Can you tell me the name of this strategy ? Is this really work to make the website active ??
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | loumi0 -
DIV Attribute containing full DIV content
Hi all I recently watched the latest Mozinar called "Making Your Site Audits More Actionable". It was presented by the guys at seogadget. In the mozinar one of the guys said he loves the website www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk and that they have spent a lot of money on it from an SEO point of view (presumably with seogadget) so I decided to look through the source and noticed something I had not seen before and wondered if anyone can shed any light. On this page (http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorcycle_parts/content_cat/852/(2;product_rating;DESC;0-0;all;92)/page_1/max_20) there is a paragraph of text that begins with 'The ever reliable UK weather...' and when you via the source of the containing DIV you will notice a bespoke attribute called "threedots=" and within it, is the entire text content for that DIV. Any thoughts as to why they would put that there? I can't see any reason as to why this would benefit a site in any shape or form. Its invalid markup for one. Am I missing a trick..? Thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Kris P.S. for those who can't be bothered to visit the site, here is a smaller version of what they have done: This is an introductory paragraph of text for this page.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | yousayjump0 -
Will aggregating external content hurt my domain's SERP performance?
Hi, We operate a website that helps parents find babysitters. As a small add- on we currently run a small blog with the topic of childcare and parenting. We are now thinking of introducing a new category to our blog called "best articles to read today". The idea is that we "re-blog" selected articles from other blogs that we believe are relevant for our audience. We have obtained the permission from a number of bloggers that we may fully feature their articles on our blog. Our main aim in doing so is to become a destination site for parents. This obviously creates issues with regard to duplicated content. The question I have is: will including this duplicated content on our domain harm our domains general SERP performance? And if so, how can this effect be avoided? It isn't important for us that these "featured" articles rank in SERPs, so we could potentially make them "no index" sites or make the "rel canonical" point to the original author. Any thoughts anyone? Thx! Daan
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | daan.loening0 -
Best Website Security Service
Having been hacked twice and, it seems, still suffering from problems as a result (file changes and alterations, etc) I'm wondering if there is a good paid service that provides security for websites? I'm an online travel agent so our websites "up-time" and search engine position is vital but I'm spending more time trying sort out our websites' security than selling travel. It would be sensible to pay for a service that would ensure, as much as possible, that our site is secure and any optimisation we do is not cancelled out by hacking and security problems. If anyone could recommend a good company I would be very grateful. Colin
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | NileCruises0