Crawled page count in Search console
-
Hi Guys,
I'm working on a project (premium-hookahs.nl) where I stumble upon a situation I can’t address. Attached is a screenshot of the crawled pages in Search Console.
History:
Doing to technical difficulties this webshop didn’t always no index filterpages resulting in thousands of duplicated pages. In reality this webshops has less than 1000 individual pages. At this point we took the following steps to result this:
- Noindex filterpages.
- Exclude those filterspages in Search Console and robots.txt.
- Canonical the filterpages to the relevant categoriepages.
This however didn’t result in Google crawling less pages. Although the implementation wasn’t always sound (technical problems during updates) I’m sure this setup has been the same for the last two weeks. Personally I expected a drop of crawled pages but they are still sky high. Can’t imagine Google visits this site 40 times a day.
To complicate the situation:
We’re running an experiment to gain positions on around 250 long term searches. A few filters will be indexed (size, color, number of hoses and flavors) and three of them can be combined. This results in around 250 extra pages. Meta titles, descriptions, h1 and texts are unique as well.
Questions:
- - Excluding in robots.txt should result in Google not crawling those pages right?
- - Is this number of crawled pages normal for a website with around 1000 unique pages?
- - What am I missing?
-
Ben,
I doubt that crawlers are going to access the robots.txt file for each request, but they still have to validate any url they find against the list of the blocked ones.
Glad to help,
Don
-
Hi Don,
Thanks for the clear explanation. I always though disallow in robots.txt would give a sort of map to Google (at the start of a site crawl) with the pages on the site that shouldn’t be crawled. So he therefore didn’t have to “check the locked cars”.
If I understand you correctly, google checks the robots.txt with every single page load?
That could definitely explain high number of crawled pages per day.
Thanks a lot!
-
Hi Bob,
About the nofollow vs blocked. In the end I suppose you have the same results, but in practice it works a little differently. When you nofollow a link it tells the crawler as soon as it encounters the link not to request or follow that link path. When you block it via robots the crawler still attempts to access the url only to find it not accessible.
Imagine if I said go to the parking lot and collect all the loose change in all the unlocked cars. Now imagine how much easier that task would be if all the locked cars had a sign in the window that said "Locked", you could easily ignore the locked cars and go directly to the unlocked ones. Without the sign you would have to physically go check each car to see if it will open.
About link juice, if you have a link, juice will be passed regardless of the type of link. (You used to be able to use nofollow to preserve link juice but no longer). This is bit unfortunate for sites that use search filters because they are such a valuable tool for the users.
Don
-
Hi Don,
You're right about the sitemap, noted it on the to do list!
Your point about nofollow is intersting. Isn't excluding in robots.txt giving the same result?
Before we went on with the robots.txt we didn't implant nofollow because we didn't want any linkjuice to pass away. Since we got robots.txt I assume this doesn’t matter anymore since Google won’t crawl those pages anyway.
Best regards,
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
You can "suggest" a crawl rate to Google by logging into your webmasters tools on Google and adjusting it there.
As for indexing pages.. I looked at your robots and site. It really looks like you need to employ some No Follow on some of your internal linking, specifically on the product page filters, that alone could reduce the total number of URLS that the crawlers even attempts to look at.
Additionally your sitemap http://premium-hookahs.nl/sitemap.xml shows a change frequency of daily, and probably should be broken out between Pages / Images so you end up using two sitemaps one for images and one for pages. You may also want to review what is in there. Using ScreamingFrog (free) the sitemap I made (link) only shows about 100 urls.
Hope it helps,
Don
-
Hi Don,
Just wanted to add a quick note: your input made go through the indexation state of the website again which was worse than I through it was. I will take some steps to get this resolved, thanks!
Would love to hear your input about the number of crawled pages.
Best regards,
Bob
-
Hello Don,
Thanks for your advice. What would your advice be if the main goal would be the reduction of crawled pages per day? I think we got the right pages in the index and the old duplicates are mostly deindexed. At this point I’m mostly worried about Google spending it’s crawlbudget on the right pages. Somehow it still crawls 40.000 pages per day while we only got around 1000 pages that should be crawled. Looking at the current setup (with almost everything excluded though robots.txt) I can’t think of pages it does crawl to reach the 40k. And 40 times a day sounds like way to many crawled pages for a normal webshop.
Hope to hear from you!
-
Hello Bob,
Here is some food for thought. If you disallow a page in Robots.txt, google for example will not crawl that page. That does not however mean they will remove it from the index if it had previously been crawled. It simply treats it as inaccessible and moves on. It will take some time, months before Google finally says, we have no fresh crawls of page x, its time to remove it from the index.
On the other hand if you specifically allow Google to crawl those pages and show a no-index tag on it, Google now has a new directive it can act upon immediately.
So my evaluation of the situation would be to do 1 of 2 things.
1. Remove the disallow from robots and allow Google to crawl the pages again. However, this time use no-index, no-follow tags.
2. Remove the disallow from robots and allow Google to crawl the pages again, but use canonical tags to the main "filter" page to prevent further indexing the specific filter pages.
Which option is best depends on the amount of urls being indexed, a few thousand canonical would be my choice. A few hundred thousand, then no index would make more sense.
Whichever option, you will have to insure Google re-crawls, and then allow them time to re-index appropriately. Not a quick fix, but a fix none the less.
My thoughts and I hope it makes sense,
Don
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
-
Google Search Console Tools Sitelinks
Question. If you wanted to use the Google Demote this sitelink URL - will another sitelink appear to replace it? There is a sitelink I feel doesn't belong and hoping another one that is beneficial appears. I understand Google has control of what appears. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/47334 Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kdruckenbrod0 -
One page ranking for all key words, when other targeted pages not ranking
Hi everyone I am fairly new to SEO but have a basic understanding. I have a page that has a lot of content on it (including brand names and product types and relevant info) ranking for a quite a few key words. This is cool, except that I have pages dedicated to each specific key word that are not ranking. The more specific page still has a lot of relevant text on it too. eg. TYRES page - Ranks first for "Tyres". Ranks okay for many tyre key words, including "truck tyres"
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JDadd
TRUCK TYRES page - not ranking for "truck tyres" Further on, I then have pages not ranking all that well for more specific key words when they should. eg HONDA TRUCK TYRES - Then has a page full of product listings - no actual text. Not Ranking for "honda truck tyres". ABC HONDA TRUCK TYRE - not ranking for "abc honda truck tyre" key word
These pages don't have a lot of content on them, as essentially every single tyre is the same except for the name. But they do have text. So sometimes, these terms don't rank at all. And sometimes, the first TYRES page ranks for it. I have done the basic on page seo for all these pages (hopefully properly) including meta desc, meta titles, H1, H2, using key words in text, alt texting images where possible etc. According to MOZ they are optimised in the 90%. Link building is difficult as they are product listings, so other sites don't really link to these pages. Has anyone got ideas on why the top TYRES page might be so successful and out ranking more specific pages? Any ideas on how I can get the other pages ranking higher as they are more relevant to the search term? We are looking in to a website redesign/overhaul so any advice on how I can prevent this from happening on essentially a new site would be great too. Thanks!0 -
Google Search Analytics How to Get Search Keywords for a Page?
How do I get the keywords coming into a page on the new Google Webmaster Tools Search Analytics? Used to be there in the old version. You would just view your most popular urls and when you expanded the urls you would see the terms driving the traffic. How do I see the most popular keyword queries for a given page in the new tool? Alternatively can I still use the old tool somehow?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | K-WINTER0 -
301'd an important, ranking page to the wrong new page, any recourse?
Our 1,300 page site conversion from static html to Wordpress platform went flawlessly with the exception of 1 significant issue....an old, important, highly ranking page was 301 redirected to the wrong corresponding new page. The page it was redirected to is about a similar product, but not the same. This was an oversight that slipped through. It was brought to my attention when I noticed this new page was still holding the old page's rankings but the bounce rate skyrocketed (clearly because the content on the wrong new page was not relevant). Once identified, we cleaned up the redirect. My fear is that all the juice built up on the old .html page that ranked well has now permanently been passed to an irrelevant, insignificant page. -Is there any way to clean up this mistake? -Is there anything I can do to assist Google in associating the correct 'new' page with correct 'old' page after the wrong redirect was initially set-up? -Am I going to have to start from scratch with the new page in terms of trust, backlinks, etc. since google already noted the redirect? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seagreen0 -
Does Google throttle back the search performance of a penalised website/page after the penalty has been removed?
Hi Mozzers. Back in 2013 my website www.octopus-hr.co.uk was hit by a Penguin 2.0 penalty owing to a harmful backlink profile built by a dodgy SEO consultant (now fired). The penalty seemed to apply to the homepage of the site but other pages were unaffected. We got what links we could removed, disavowed the rest and were informed in September 2013 that the penalty had been removed and our re-inclusion request had been successful. However our website homepage still ranks poorly for the search terms we're targeting in the UK: "HR Software" "HR Systems" On page factors are in my opinion pretty well optimised for these search terms. In terms of link building post penalty we've focused on high authority and relevant sites. I believe that compared to most of our search competitors the back link profile to our homepage is in pretty good shape, however it still ranks badly. Has anyone had any experience of a penalty hangover from Google in the past? Are there other things I should consider? Thanks David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | OctopusHR0 -
To index search results or to not index search results?
What are your feelings about indexing search results? I know big brands can get away with it (yelp, ebay, etc). Apart from UGC, it seems like one of the best ways to capture long tail traffic at scale. If the search results offer valuable / engaging content, would you give it a go?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
How to avoid content canibalizm? How do I control which page is the landing page?
Hi All, To clarify my question I will give an example. Let's assume that I have a laptop e-commerce site and that one of my main categories is Samsung Laptops. The category page shows lots of laptops and a small section of text. On the other hand, in my article section I have a HUGE article about Samsung Laptops. If we consider the two word phrases each page is targeting then the answer is the same - Samsung Laptops. On the article i point to the category page using anchor such as "buy samsung laptops" or "samsung laptops" and on the category page (my wishful landing page) I point to the article with "learn about samsung laptops" or "samsung laptops pros and cons". Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0 -
High number of items per page or low number with more category pages?
In SEO terms, what would be the best method: High number of items per page or low number with more pages? For example, this category listing here: http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/90/fsx-civil-aircraft/ It has 10 items per page. Would there be any benefit of changing a listing like that to 20 items in order to decrease the number of pages in the category? Also, what other ways could you increase the SEO of category listings like that?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640