The evolution of Google's 'Quality' filters - Do thin product pages still need noindex?
-
I'm hoping that Mozzers can weigh in with any recent experiences with eCommerce SEO.....
I like to assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Google's 'Quality' filters (formerly known as Panda) have evolved with some intelligence since Panda first launched and started penalising eCommerce sites for having thin product pages. On this basis i'd expect that the filters are now less heavy handed and know that product pages with no or little product description on them are still a quality user experience for people who want to buy that product.
Therefore my question is this...
Do thin product pages still need noindex given that more often that not they are a quality search result for those using a product specific search query?Has anyone experienced penalty recently (last 12 months) on an ecommerce site because of a high number of thin product pages?
-
My apologies for taking so long to get to this question after you asked. Here are my thoughts.
Have you seen this article that I wrote for Moz on Panda and thin content?
https://moz.com/blog/have-we-been-wrong-about-panda-all-along
I don't actually believe that Google demotes/penalizes eCommerce sites for having thin product pages. I think it's much more complicated than this.
Most of the eCommerce sites that I have seen that were hit by Panda were, in my opinion, hit because their sites had very little to offer users to make them rise above the competition. If 10,000 different sites are all selling the same product, which site is Google going to show at the top of the search results?
When Panda first came out, people were quick to jump on the "duplicate content" bandwagon. Lots of people were rewriting product descriptions because they felt that they would be penalized for using stock product descriptions. But this is not true. If an eCommerce site is demoted by Panda or by a Quality filter I think it's extremely unlikely for it to see improvement just because the product description is rewritten.
Similarly, I don't think that noindexing product pages will make a big difference in the eyes of Panda. Now, if a site has a huge number of urls for each product (i.e. different sizes, colours, options, etc.), it's important to canonicalize those pages. In my opinion, this isn't for Panda reasons though but rather to help optimize your crawl budget and make it easier for Google to understand your site. You don't want Google to spend all of its time crawling 2000 variations of one product and not visiting the rest of your site.
So, back to your original question. Should we be noindexing product pages with no or little product description? I don't think there is a black and white answer for this. I would likely start by looking at analytics data to see how user engagement is for these pages. If I'm looking for a particular product, it may not actually need a product description. If your site is one of the few that sells this product and the page itself is useful then it might be ok. Check your analytics...are people spending time on these pages? Are they immediately bouncing off? Are they making purchases after visiting these pages? Or are they mostly pages that nobody ever visits? If that's the case then perhaps they shouldn't be in Google's index.
Another thing to look at is whether these product pages are frustrating to users. If you do have some indexed, you can look at data from Google Search Console Search Analytics. See what queries those pages are ranking for. Are those pages likely to answer the user's query? If not, if they are likely to frustrate users then they could be a Panda risk. For example, let's say you have a product page that is ranking relatively well for questions like, "How to choose a [product]", "what sizes does [product] come in?", "[product] user reviews". But, let's say that your particular page that is ranking for these terms doesn't answer any of those questions. It's my opinion that if your product pages are consistently not providing searchers with what they want, then they are at a risk for a Panda demotion and that demotion could be on your site as a whole.
I think Google is getting much better at figuring out what sites are most helpful to users. In most cases, rather than deciding on what to index and what to noindex, I think the better spend of time and money would be on finding ways to improve the user experience overall so that your site is by far the better option than your competitors'. It's hard to do that objectively though. You may need to get nonpartial users to visit your site and your competitors' sites and tell you honestly which site they would prefer for research and for purchasing.
I've likely skirted your question a little. I don't think the answer is black and white.
-
I don't think releasing a lot of thin and duplicate content product pages back into the index is a good idea, but if you try and and prove me wrong I'd love to know.
-
Thanks for joining the discussion Everett!
The ecommerce site in question currently has most of its product pages noindexed. This was implemented back in 2013 because the pages either have no product description or just a single sentence. The noindexing did bring about a Panda recovery at the time.
The site is currentky being redesigned and relaunched and a decision has to be made re. whether to leave the noindex on product pages in place. Three years down the line from when I recommended the noindex and three years of listening to Google's rhetoric re. providing content that gives quality user experience and I'm now looking at these pages and thinking.... "You know what....these pages would actually be a quality search result for people. Anyone searching for what they're optimised for (the specific product name) is likely to have the intent to buy. These pages allow you to buy the product that you want!. A product description is pointless. The searcher knows the product and wants to buy it and this page allows you to buy it from a site that is well known and trusted in it's niche!"
Because this is obvious to me I was hoping that it is now obvious to Google's quality filters and I can remove the noindex and get more traffic. Perhaps not....
-
QubaSEO,
I think many people give Google too much credit. As Andy said, one would need more information to tell you whether noindexing those thin product pages is a good move. At minimum, link, traffic and sales data for each of the URLs.
My advice is to read these posts and do the research necessary to make a customized decision for your site, as opposed to seeking general "best practice advice".
-
I have indeed, although it was more because all they carried on the page was literally a few lines per page and no value-add. Most of what was there was copied from the manufacturers site. Interesting, would you say that the pages were still a good quality search result for those using a product specific search query? i.e the searcher was able to fulfil their search intent and buy the product?
Perhaps I give Google too much credit...
-
Has anyone experienced penalty recently (last 12 months) on an ecommerce site because of a high number of thin product pages?
I have indeed, although it was more because all they carried on the page was literally a few lines per page and no value-add. Most of what was there was copied from the manufacturers site.
Google have also said they prefer you not to no-index pages, but instead, try and make the pages better. I would be cautious of advising that yes, no-indexing is a good idea, without knowing more about the site and taking a look.
Is there something going on with the site that is causing concern, or is this for a new site before they launch?
-Andy
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
-
Page content is not very similar but topic is same: Will Google considers the rel canonical tags?
Hi Moz community, We have multiple pages from our own different sub-domains for same topics. These pages even rank in SERP for related keywords. Now we are planning to show only one of the pages in SERP. We cannot redirect unfortunately. We are planning to use rel canonical tags. But the page content is not same, only 20% is similar and 80% is different but the context is same. If we use rel canonicals, does Google accepts this? If not what should I do? Making header tags similar works? How Google responds if content is not matching? Just ignore or any negative score? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Weekly traffic from Google: How do you explain this?
Hello here, I have question for you. Please, have a look at the attached image from my website analytics which shows the unique visits trend of the last 2 months. What it is interesting is that every Monday Google brings me more traffic than any other day of the week, whereas on Saturdays it gives me the lowest traffic. And looks like that's a pretty regular weekly pattern. Why is Google doing that? What does that mean? Why such a clear and steady pattern? I am eager to know your thoughts about this! CGuULrN.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | fablau0 -
Not necessary to have keywords in the page? Do you agree?
I am being told by my SEO consultants that: "According to present Google algorithm it is not necessary to have keywords in the page. What is more required is the content is relevant to the page and whether visitors will stay on that page or not. If visitors stay for a longer time in your site it add bonus to the ranking of the site. So I think it is not necessary to add key phrases in the content." Do you agree?
Algorithm Updates | | PegCorwin0 -
Vanity URL's and http codes
We have a vanity URL that as recommended is using 301 http code, however it has been discovered the destination URL needs to be updated which creates a problem since most browsers and search engines cache 301 redirects. Is there a good way to figure out when a vanity should be a 301 vs 302/307? If all vanity URL's should use 301, what is the proper way of updating the destination URL? Is it a good rule of thumb that if the vanity URL is only going to be temporary and down the road could have a new destination URL to use 302, and all others 301? Cheers,
Algorithm Updates | | Shawn_Huber0 -
Why do in-site search result pages rank better than my product pages?
Maybe this is a common SERP for a generic product type but I'm seeing it a lot more often. Here is an example SERP "rolling stools". The top 4 results are dynamic in-site search pages from Sears, ebay and Amazon (among others). I understand their influence and authority but why would a search return a dynamic in-site SERP instead of a solid product page. A better question would be - How do I get my in-site SERPs to rank or how do I get my client's page to rise above the #5 spot is currently ranks at? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | BenRWoodard0 -
Webpage is ranking on google.ie / google.co.uk but not google.com?
One of our site webpage appears to be found in the first few pages on google.ie / google.co.uk but not on google.com. Is there such a thing being penalised on a specific Google domain? Traffic is healthy despite this but I want to rank well for the page in google.com. Any ideas?
Algorithm Updates | | notnem0 -
Google Cached Pages
I made some on-site changes to a site last week, in particular their page titles. This was all done on the same day at the same time. Now, one of those pages, got re-indexed on August 8th and has my updated changes, which also helped with my ranking. The other page I made changes to still shows a cached version from July 27th, which is before I made the changes. Why wouldn't google have an updated page from August 8th for both pages, not just one?
Algorithm Updates | | MichaelWeisbaum0 -
If we are getting clicks from a local one box as a citation in the serps's would we see this as the referrer in GA?
If we are getting clicks from a local one box as a citation in the serps's
Algorithm Updates | | Mediative
would we see this as the referrer in GA?0