The "Fetch As Google" limit has been decreased - what now?
-
Since Google decreased the "Fetch As Google" limit to ten pages per day, we've been a bit stuck. We're publishing 20-30 content pages per day, targeting a huge range of search queries. Circa 40% of our traffic comes to us through these pages.
Since we're now heavily restricted on submitting these to Google, who's got other ideas to get the pages picked up quickly? I'm slightly concerned because although the pages link outwards to other areas of the website, no other areas of the site link to these pages. They're purely top-of-the-funnel.
We can't be the only people with this concern. How would you address it?
-
Thank you. Will have a go at Google News - not sure we fit the criteria but can't hurt to try, eh??
-
Thank you very much. That's really helpful and I appreciate you putting so much time into your answer.
-
You maybe right about Google+, but that said, in the google news guidelines, they do suggest that they may use google+ to 'better surface content'.
"Add or edit your Google+ Page URL. We may use publicly available information from your Google+ page to deliver a better news experience and to better surface your content. "
https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/4581428?hl=en-GB
-
Hi MSG
You should not have to fetch as Google to get your pages indexed and please with deference to Paul, above, posting on Google+ will not speed up indexing. If it did then people would be all over it and they are not. You also can only apply to Google news if you have a newsworthy site and I can tell you right now that 90+% of sites are rejected because what they post is not news.
The fact that a page is posted puts it in the sitemap which is picked up by Google. Also depending on the size of your site some of it is crawled by Google every day. Just go to Google Seach Console Crawl Stats to see that.
I have seen pages indexed in under a minute (none news sites - yes seriously) and others take a week. What is of major concern is how you say that these pages are not linked from anywhere because there lies a large part of your problem. You need a proper site structure so that link juice passes from the main menu down through all the pages of your website. The more 'shallow' this is, the better as the pages are closer to the top.
If you are burying pages deep in your website with no logical route to them then they are just not going to rank quickly.
Read more on site architecture here: https://moz.com/blog/site-architecture-for-seo It's old but still very relevant.
You need a solid site structure which starts with the main menu with proper departments, categories and if necessary, sub-categories.
Sort that out and you will see your pages indexed much quicker.
If you can get do-follow backlinks then this will help, but certainly not from Facebook and G+ as they are all nofollow.
Regards
Nigel
-
Although I think it depends a little on how 'important' it thinks your site is, I think google crawls sites with regularly updated content very frequently, so I'd suspect that as long as you're linking to this content from somewhere prominent on your site, you shouldn't have an issue.
You could also use a sitemap to tell google about fresh content, perhaps also consider applying to google news if you can, and then use a news sitemap which google will certainly be very quick to check and spider new urls from. In the advice for google news, they also suggest posting content to google+, so I'd also use that to post new content to, as it's another method of telling google you have something fresh for them to spider.
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 Tag Manager
What are some of the best resources with learning and teaching other GTM and conversion tracking?
Industry News | | WebMarkets1 -
How are Composite Door Shop number 1 for "composite doors"?!!
I have a client who competes with Composite Door Shop for "composite doors" and when doing a back link profile analysis it makes me wonder if Google is cramping down on EMD's (I know they have, I'm just frustrated!!) and how on earth they are number 1!! http://stereogum.com/49561/new_u2_video_get_on_your_boots/video/ and http://www.seo-writer.com/writers/index.php/2008/08/29/ghost-writers-need-to-eat-too/, both comments in blogs are their highest authority links!! Frustrating doesn't even cover it!! Is anyone else see that competitors have terrible back links?
Industry News | | KarlBantleman0 -
Anyone else know much about the Google Pirate penalty?
The Google 'Pirate' (no official name) seems to have gone largely undiscussed since it was launched last - Fri 10th August http://insidesearch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/an-update-to-our-search-algorithms.html. The idea of it is to ensure those 'Pirating' content or abusing trademarks e.g. fake ugg boot sites and file sharing sites do not appear higher in the search results than the genuine websites. Google is using DMCA take down requests for labeling sites as Pirate and demote their rankings, Im amazed not even seomoz has covered the subject yet as far as I can see, yet it is a hugely important new update, albeit affecting a relatively small number of sites now, and in some cases (at least one I know first hand) seemingly without justification (the example I know is not a file sharing, fake goods, trademark abusive site at all.) Google updating its search algorithm based on DMCA take down requests seems a bit strong - these are takedown requests, not legal proof that a site is infringing a trademark. A real weapon for negative SEO? Anyone else had experience of the pirate update or know much more about it? Outside Danny Sullivan I dont see many SEO folk covering it. Heres my own insights into it and what ive learned about what (only innocently) affected sites should do to appeal http://www.andy-maclean.net/the-google-pirate-dmca-guidance/
Industry News | | AndyMacLean0 -
Google Trends - what did you do?
So is it me or did Google make some crazy changes - The "trends" are no longer anchored to appropriate articles etc... Why do you think they would remove something so useful to us? http://www.google.com/trends/ - check it out for yourself. tumblr_m5jh04D65G1ry8grko1_1280.png
Industry News | | Chenzo0 -
When will Rand put out "Art of SEO 2nd Edition"? (ANSWER: IN ABOUT 2 WEEKS)
First edition was printed in the end of 2009. Great Book. Needs updating of course. I would buy the next edition if it was updated in an awesome way that I know Rand and the others would do.
Industry News | | stubby0 -
Google+ profiles and Rel Author. Extensive question
A bit of a mammoth question for discussion here: With the launch of Google+ and profiles, coupled with the ability to link/verify authorship using rel=me to google+ profile - A few questions with respect to the long term use and impact. As an individual - I can have a Google+ Profile, and add links to author pages where I am featured. If rel=me is used back to my G+ profile - google can recognise me as the writer - no problem with that. However - if I write for a variety of different sites, and produce a variety of different content - site owners could arguably become reluctant to link back or accredit me with the rel=me tag on the account I might be writing for a competitor for example, or other content in a totally different vertical that is irrelevant. Additionally - if i write for a company as an employee, and the rel=me tag is linked to my G+ profile - my profile (I would assume) is gaining strength from the fact that my work is cited through the link (even if no link juice is passed - my profile link is going to appear in the search results on a query that matches something I have written, and hence possibly drain some "company traffic" to my profile). If I were to then leave the employment of that company - and begin writing for a direct competitor - is my profile still benefiting from the old company content I have written? Given that google is not allowing pseudonyms or ghost writer profiles - where do we stand with respect to outsourced content? For example: The company has news written for them by a news supplier - (each writer has a name obviously) - but they don't have or don't want to create a G+ profile for me to link to. Is it a case of wait for google to come up with the company profiles? or, use a ghost name and run the gauntlet on G+? Lastly, and I suppose the bottom line - as a website owner/company director/SEO; Is adding rel=me links to all your writers profiles (given that some might only write 1 or 2 articles, and staff will inevitably come and go) an overall positive for SEO? or, a SERP nightmare if a writer moves on to another company? In essence are site owners just improving the writers profile rather than gaining very much?
Industry News | | IPINGlobal541 -
Is Bing actually using Yahoo's search engine now?
All my Bing rankings are now the same as Yahoo's ranking were, but I expected the opposite. Meanwhile, my Yahoo rankings are exactly the same as they were last week.
Industry News | | agawrvagreaas0 -
What's the oldest "blank" on the Internet?
What's the oldest active domain on the Internet? What was the first registered domain? What's the oldest active link? What other old web stuff can you think of?
Industry News | | Gyi0