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
-
Does anyone know how to fix this structured data error on search console? Invalid value in field "itemtype"
I'm getting the same structured data error on search console form most of my websites, Invalid value in field "itemtype" I take off all the structured data but still having this problem, according to Search console is a syntax problem but I can't find what is causing this. Any guess, suggestion or solution for this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexanders0 -
Why does Google display the home page rather than a page which is better optimised to answer the query?
I have a page which (I believe) is well optimised for a specific keyword (URL, title tag, meta description, H1, etc). yet Google chooses to display the home page instead of the page more suited to the search query. Why is Google doing this and what can I do to stop it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | muzzmoz0 -
Why our page not ranking even searching for exact h1 tag?
Even I search for exact h1 tag heading from our homepage, it's (homepage) not been showing up on TOP of the results. Other websites with partial match of search query are ranking above us; why this is happening? And other website with same text as normal paragraph is ranking on top. But not out h1 tag from homepage? How come normal text of unrelated website is ranking above h1 heading from homepage of own website?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Pages with Duplicate Page Content (with and without www)
How can we resolve pages with duplicate page content? With and without www?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | directiq
Thanks in advance.0 -
Indexing Dynamic Pages
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/search/Wiper+Blade/03300/C0047.oap?make=Honda&model=Accord&year=2005&vi=1430764 How is O'Reilly getting this page indexed? It shows up in organic results for [2005 honda accord windshield wiper size].
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingof50 -
HELP! How does one prevent regional pages as being counted as "duplicate content," "duplicate meta descriptions," et cetera...?
The organization I am working with has multiple versions of its website geared towards the different regions. US - http://www.orionhealth.com/ CA - http://www.orionhealth.com/ca/ DE - http://www.orionhealth.com/de/ UK - http://www.orionhealth.com/uk/ AU - http://www.orionhealth.com/au/ NZ - http://www.orionhealth.com/nz/ Some of these sites have very similar pages which are registering as duplicate content, meta descriptions and titles. Two examples are: http://www.orionhealth.com/terms-and-conditions http://www.orionhealth.com/uk/terms-and-conditions Now even though the content is the same, the navigation is different since each region has different product options / services, so a redirect won't work since the navigation on the main US site is different from the navigation for the UK site. A rel=canonical seems like a viable option, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it tells search engines to only index the main page, in this case, it would be the US version, but I still want the UK site to appear to search engines. So what is the proper way of treating similar pages accross different regional directories? Any insight would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Scratch_MM0 -
Google cached pages and search terms
Here's something I noticed. We have a rank A page and it's ranking 10 on Google search results. When I hover my mouse over our search result, Google gives us a preview, but Google also highlights in red where the search keyword is present on the page. Reviewing our page, even though we have it as the h1 header and intro paragraph, Google is highlighting it half way down the page. Any ideas why? I review rank 1 - 5 and Google highlights the keyword on the intro paragraph and h1 header Have you guys experienced anything like this? It makes me think..Google could be crawling my site and thinking I haven't got it in the h1 or intro paragraph etc.. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
Links to Facebook pages
I would like to ask if anyone has any knowledge regarding linking to a company's facebook page. I have built a few links to a client's facebook page in an effort to have it rank better in SERPs. I just learned that unlike twitter and linkedin, it is apparently not possibly to directly link to facebook pages. At least it is not possible from a search engine's perspective. If you follow any facebook page link while you are not logged into facebook, you are redirected to the facebook home page. I can't think of any way around this obstacle. I'd love some clever solution such as providing a URL which includes a basic dummy facebook login but there is nothing I am aware of to achieve this result. Does anyone have any ideas on this topic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RyanKent0