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
-
Does Google’s Algorithm Populate Answer Boxes with Its Own Independent Research?
If you search 'best games to play for youtube' you get an answer box with answers pulled independently from the article at hand. Here's an image: http://imgur.com/a/S0j9B Here are all the games from my article, in the order in which they appear. Google's chosen games for Answer Box are bolded: Battlefield 1 Bloodborne GTA V FiFA 16 TrackMania Turbo Garry’s Mod League of Legends Call of Duty: Black Ops III Tom Clancy’s The Division Overwatch Just Cause 3 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Brawlhalla Rocket League Dark Souls III Unravel Firewatch GoldenEye 007 (this was put in as a joke, but coded as an H2 nonetheless) Destiny Dead by Daylight Fallout 4 Undertale No Man’s Sky Minecraft As you can see, Google is choosing which games to display to its searchers. My Crazy Egg data shows that these were not picked by click volume (each of these H2s are hyperlinked), which means Google must be using some other popularity metric, such as its own search volume data or external sales data. I wrote this up in a post on my site, for anybody who's curious.
Algorithm Updates | | Edward_Sturm1 -
Category Containing a Product searched shows up higher in google then the product page itself?
Hello Moz Wizards, We have recently launched a new eCommerce website www.memoky.com and think we did a pretty good job with the markup structure for feeding the hungry google bot all information available about a the products. However google doesn't like us very much : ( It seems every time you google a product that we carry; the category pages that contain that product will show up, but the product page itself does not. Below are two examples, however this seems to be site-wide which makes me feel like there is an underlying issue that we are missing. Examples
Algorithm Updates | | Memoky
when searched for "Eduardo floor lamp - matt black/matt yellow shade"
Shows ups - http://www.memoky.com/lighting/floor-lamps.html
Does not - http://www.memoky.com/eduardo-floor-lamp-matt-black-matt-yellow-shade.html when searched for "Derrick arm chair - white leather/ walnut"
Shows ups - http://www.memoky.com/living/lounge-chairs.html_
Does not - http://www.memoky.com/derrick-arm-chair-white-leather.html_ that is the pattern for almost all the products on this site. Any thoughts on why this could be the case?0 -
Canonical from NOINDEX,FOLLOW pages - Bad idea?
Hi, We have an extensive online shop in Magento - to ensure that some of the pages with query strings are not indexed, we implemented a conditional NOINDEX,FOLLOW so that it will stop indexing any pages that have querystrings on it - We do need to use Canonical also - for other reasons - so my question is: If you have a page that is NOINDEX,FOLLOW and it has a rel canonical pointing to original, would it transfer that NOINDEX,FOLLOW to the main original page causing it problems? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | bjs20100 -
Google Page Rank not improving
Hi All, I have a site live with a homepage rank of 5, Ever since relaunching (on the same domain) 6 months ago the inner page rank has remained at NA. Its crawled pretty consistently, Can anyone think of a reason this may be happening? www.glowm.com
Algorithm Updates | | thebluecubeuk0 -
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 -
Having issues claiming a Google+ Business page (phone number not associated with business address)
When attempting to claim my Google+ account, it asks for the phone number. When I enter the number listed on my business listing, it says that number cannot be found... It then tells me to re-enter all my business info. If I do this, will I lose all my existing photos, videos etc.? Has anyone found this?
Algorithm Updates | | DCochrane0 -
Google UK search volumes
If a user searches using Google.com but is based in the UK, is it classed as a Google UK search or a Google US search in terms of monthly search volumes? Most of my clients are targeting UK consumers and often rank well on Google UK but outside the top fifty for Google US. I have mentioned that that is fine unless a client happens to use google.com. Am I talking rubbish?
Algorithm Updates | | Switch_Digital0 -
Google changing case of URLs in SERPs?
Noticed some strange behavior over the last week or so regarding our SERPs and I haven't been able to find anything on the web about what might be happening. Over the past two weeks, I've been seeing our URLs slowly change from upper case to lower case in the SERPs. Our URLs are usually /Blue-Fuzzy-Widgets.htm but Google has slowly been switching them to /blue-fuzzy-widgets.htm. There has been no change in our actual rankings nor has it happened to anyone else in the space. We're quite dumbfounded as to why Google would choose to serve the lower case URL. To be clear, we do not build links to these lower case URLs, only the upper. Any ideas what might be happening here?
Algorithm Updates | | Natitude0