Include or exclude noindex urls in sitemap?
-
We just added tags to our pages with thin content.
Should we include or exclude those urls from our sitemap.xml file? I've read conflicting recommendations.
-
Hi vcj and the rest of you guys
I would be very interested in learning what strategy you actually went ahead with, and the results. I have a similar issue as a result of pruning, and removing noindex pages from the sitemap makes perfect sense to me. We set a noindexed follow on several thousand pages without product descriptions/thin content and we have set things up so when we add new descriptions and updated onpage elements, the noindex is automatically reversed; which sounds perfect, however hardly any of the pages to date (3000-4000) are indexed, so looking for a feasible solution for exactly the same reasons as you.
We have better and comparable metrics and optimization than a lot of the competition, yet rankings are mediocre, so looking to improve on this.
It would be good to hear your views
Cheers
-
I'm aware of the fact Google will get to them sooner or later.
The recommendation from Gary Illyes (from Google), as mentioned in this post, was the reason for my asking the question. Not trying to outsmart Google, just trying to work within their guidelines in the most efficient way possible.
-
Just to put things into perspective,
if these URLs are all already indexed and you have used "noindex" on those pages, sooner or later google will re-crawl these pages and they will be removed. You may want to remove them from the index ASAP for some reason, but it wont really change anything. Because Google will not deindex your noindex pages just because they are in your sitemap.xml.
Google deindexes a sie only when it is time to re-crawl the page.Google never recommends using noindex in sitemaps, and google wont suggest that in their blocking search indexing results guidelines. Also Google indicates the following:
"Google will completely drop the page from search results, even if other pages link to it. If the content is currently in our index, we will remove it after the next time we crawl it. (To expedite removal, use the Remove URLs tool in Google Webmaster Tools.)"But hey! every SEO has its own take.. Some tend to try outsmart Google some not..
Good luck
-
That opens up other potential restrictions to getting this done quickly and easily. I wouldn't consider it best practices to create what is essentially a spam page full of internal links and Googlebot will likely not crawl all 4000 links if you have them all there. So now you'd be talking about maybe making 20 or so thin, spammy looking pages of 200+ internal links to hopefully fix the issue.
The quick, easy sounding options are not often the best option. Considering you're doing all of this in an attempt to fix issues that arose due to an algorithmic penalty, I'd suggest trying to follow best practices for making these changes. It might not be easy but it'll lessen your chances of having done a quick fix that might be the cause, or part of, a future penalty.
So if Fetch As won't work for you (considering lack of manpower to manually fetch 4000 pages), the sitemap.xml option might be the better choice for you.
-
Thanks, Mike.
What are your thoughts on creating a page with links to all of the pages we've Noindexed, doing a Fetch As and submitting that URL and its linked pages? Do you think Google would dislike that?
-
You could technically add them to the sitemap.xml in the hopes that this will get them noticed faster but the sitemap is commonly used for the things you want Google to crawl and index. Plus, placing them in the sitemap does not guarantee Google is going to get around to crawling your change or those specific pages. Technically speaking, doing nothing and jut waiting is equally as valid. Google will recrawl your site at some point. Sitemap.xml only helps if Google is crawling you to see it. Fetch As makes Google see your page as it is now which is like forcing part of a crawl. So technically Fetch As will be the more reliable, quicker choice though it will be more labor-intensive. If you don't have the man-hours to do a project like that at the moment, then waiting or using the Sitemap could work for you. Google even suggests using Fetch As for urls you want them to see that you have blocked with meta tags: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93710?hl=en&ref_topic=4598466
-
There are too many pages to do that (unless we created a page with links to all of the Noindexed pages, then asked Google to crawl that and all linked pages, though that seems like it might be a bad approach). It's an ecommerce website and we Noindexed nearly 4,000 pages that had thin or duplicate content (manufacturer descriptions, no description on brand page, etc) and had no organic traffic in the past 90 days.
This site was hit by Panda in September 2014 and isn't ranking for things it should be – pages with better backlink profiles, higher DA/PA, better content, etc. than our competitors. Our thought is we're not ranking because of a penalty against thin/duplicate content. So we decided to Noindex these pages, improve the content on products that are selling and getting traffic, then work on improving pages that we've Noindex before switching them back to Index.
Basically following recommendations from this article: https://moz.com/blog/pruning-your-ecommerce-site
-
If the pages are in the index and you've recently added a NoIndex tag with the express purpose of getting them removed from the index, you may be better served doing crawl requests in Search Console of the pages in question.
-
Thanks for your response!
I did some more digging. This seems to contradict your suggestion:
https://twitter.com/methode/status/653980524264878080
If the goal is to have these pages removed from the index, and having them in the sitemap means they'll be picked up sooner by Google's crawler, then it seems to make sense that they should be included until they're removed from the index.
Am I misinterpreting this?
-
Hi
The reason you submit a sitemap to a searchengine is to ease and aid in crawling process for the pages that you want to get indexed. It speeds up the crawling process and lets search engine to discover all those pages that has no inner linkings to it etc..
A "noindex" tag does the opposite.
So no, you should not include noindex pages inside your sitemap files.
In general you should avoid pages that are not returning 200 also.Good luck
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
-
2 sitemaps on my robots.txt?
Hi, I thought that I just could link one sitemap from my site's robots.txt but... I may be wrong. So, I need to confirm if this kind of implementation is right or wrong: robots.txt for Magento Community and Enterprise ...
Technical SEO | | Webicultors
Sitemap: http://www.mysite.es/media/sitemap/es.xml
Sitemap: http://www.mysite.pt/media/sitemap/pt.xml Thanks in advance,0 -
Sitemap_index.xml = noindex,follow
I was running a rapport with Sreaming Frog SEO Spider and i saw: (Tab) Directives > NOindex : https://compleetverkleed.nl/sitemap_index.xml/ is set on X-Robots-Tag 1 > noindex,follow Does this mean my sitemap isn't indexed? If anyone has some more tips for our website, feel free to give some suggestions 🙂 (Website is far from complete)
Technical SEO | | Happy-SEO2 -
Should I change the URL now?
Hi all, I have a client website that got hit in the latest algorithm update. It since appears that it had over 100 suspect links to it. I performed the Disavow procedure a few weeks ago via my Google Webmaster account, but have not received a message yet to say its been actioned. The majority of these suspect links go to one page. I am considering changing the base category (in Wordpress) to a different keyphrase and then submitting a new sitemap for indexing. This way there will be no actual link from a suspect website to a page on my website. Do you see what I mean? Will this help do you think? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | BrandC0 -
Content and url duplication?
One of the campaign tools flags one of my clients sites as having lots of duplicates. This is true in the sense the content is sort of boiler plate but with the different countries wording changed. The is same with the urls but they are different in the sense a couple of words have changed in the url`s. So its not the case of a cms or server issue as this seomoz advises. It doesnt need 301`s! Thing is in the niche, freight, transport operators, shipping, I can see many other sites doing the same thing and those sites have lots of similar pages ranking very well. In fact one site has over 300 keywords ranked on page 1-2, but it is a large site with an 12yo domain, which clearly helps. Of course having every page content unique is important, however, i suppose it is better than copy n paste from other sites. So its unique in that sense. Im hoping to convince the site owner to change the content over time for every country. A long process. My biggest problem for understanding duplication issues is that every tabloid or broadsheet media website would be canned from google as quite often they scrape Reuters or re-publish standard press releases on their sites as newsworthy content. So i have great doubt that there is a penalty for it. You only have to look and you can see media sites duplication everywhere, everyday, but they get ranked. I just think that google dont rank the worst cases of spammy duplication. They still index though I notice. So considering the business niche has very much the same content layout replicated content, which rank well, is this duplicate flag such a great worry? Many businesses sell the same service to many locations and its virtually impossible to re write the services in a dozen or so different ways.
Technical SEO | | xtopher660 -
Formatting dynamic urls?
We have a long-time previously well-established website that was hit by panda. On one section of the site, we have dynamic urls that include %20 in them (e.g. North%20America). It's recently come to our attention that google has both a version of the url with a plus sign (+) and the version with the %20 (space) (e.g. North+America). Upon researching this, it seems that a hyphen (-) is preferable to either of the above. We obviously need to remove the %20's from the urls as they can cause issues. So, should we stick with the + sign since it's already indexed and ranking or do a 301 rewrite and change them all to hyphens instead of the plus sign? This is the one section of the site that has maintained rankings through the panda debacle, so we need to take that into consideration as we don’t want to lose the rankings that we have. Along the same lines, we have two other sections of the site that provide search results as well, though these are all formatted to use a plus sign. Is it advisable to do a 301 rewrite to change the plus signs to hyphens on these as well or just leave them alone? This particular section has lost rankings over the last year with panda updates.
Technical SEO | | Odjobob0 -
Backslash in URL
my main URL is www.americanmusical.com, SEOMOZ shows I have a duplicate page title on www.americanmusical.com/. I have the think the backslash is causing other issues. I noticed when I first go to my site it is without the /, but if I navigate to the home page, the URL has the / in it. Any ideas on if this is a problem or how to handle it?
Technical SEO | | dianeb1520 -
Keyword and URL
I have a client who has a popular name (like 'Joe Smith'). His blog URL has only his first name and the name of his company in it, like joe.company.com. His blog doesn't rank well at all in the first 3-4 Google SERPs. I was thinking of advising him to change the URL of his blog to joesmith.company.com, and having his webmaster do 301 redirects from the old URL to the new one. Do you think this is a good strategy, or would you recommend something else? I realize ranking isn't just about the URL, it's about links, etc. But I think making his URL more specific to his name could help. Any advice greatly appreciated! Jim
Technical SEO | | JamesAMartin0 -
URL Structure
Hi Guys, I'm in the process of creating a very exciting startup aimed at the baby industry. It's essentially a social commerce question where parents can shop for products, create lists of products and ask questions. The challenge I'm facing is how best to structure my URLs from an SEO standpoint. For example a common baby topic such as "feeding", can sit in all three categories: Shopping category aggregates all products related to feeding List category aggregates all lists related to feeding Question category aggregates all question and answers on feeding So for that keyword "feeding" you have 3 potential landing pages. What I was wondering is what is the most effective way of doing it? I was thinking of something along these lines: /shopping/feeding /baby_list/feeding /ask/feeding Would love to hear your points of view on this. Thanks! Walid
Technical SEO | | walidalsaqqaf0