Random important product pages dropped out of index week ending Dec 22: why???
-
Hello
We've been around a very long time, and I have a long running pet set of core terms and pages tracked using Moz and other tools. With no changes to the content or site or htaaccess or robots.txt or sitemap, insignificant backlink changes etc, we saw a ton of important product pages drop out of the index the week ending December 22 2019. We are still ranking for many of the terms associated, but at far worse positions since the pages G is choosing instead for those terms are not as focused. I need to be clear that this has not happened across the board, but seemingly at random.
When I look in G Search Console, the pages are submitted and indexed (last crawl yesterday), mobile friendly, have breadcrumbs, and the only warning are product level for lack of optional fields under offers (nothing new, not particular to the dropped pages in question here).
So, what happened the week ending December 22???? Should I expect the dust to settle and the pages to return? Extremely strange.
Thx
-
That very much sounds like, for some reason Google has gone from viewing that particular page template as "decent, worthy of rankings" to "ok, will rank if I can't find something better". One thing I am wondering, if you have been hit by this: https://moz.com/blog/google-review-stars-drop-by-14-percent
... which is also related to this:
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/09/making-review-rich-results-more-helpful.html
Specifically where they say "Self-serving reviews aren't allowed for LocalBusiness and Organization. Reviews that can be perceived as “self-serving” aren't in the best interest of users. We call reviews “self-serving” when a review about entity A is placed on the website of entity A - either directly in their markup or via an embedded 3rd party widget. That’s why, with this change, we’re not going to display review rich results anymore for the schema types LocalBusiness and Organization"
It seems as if 'something' existed on your product detail pages which Google was valuing highly, which they no longer value at all. Thus you aren't seeing complete drop-off, but a high correlation between declining (or removed) results and pages utilising that feature
Basically self-hosted reviews and some embedded reviews 'no longer count' towards Google rankings (at all). The news broke in September 2019, but I wouldn't be surprised if the roll-out was more recent. Moz posted that they noticed movements on Sept 24, which is very nearly November. As we know, these types of updates tend to slowly crawl across Google's query-spaces, it's not often true that everyone gets hit at once
Maybe your site is just in the late batch
-
Hi
Thanks. Yeah, the thing here is not just a rank decline, it is the page dropped from the index altogether. Google instead choosing a different page from our site to rank for the same terms, but at a lesser position. Confirmed page dropped using site: www.domain.com searches. This is an ecommerce site with some 5,000 distinct product pages. We are not new, we've been around with an ecommerce site since 1997. The current site has existed in current for ~14 years. Again, it's seemingly random product detail pages being dropped. No manual action, no site errors (500 etc), no redirects or other problematic factors.
Roughly 1/3 of all tracked keywords in our long-running Moz pro campaign experienced either rank declines and a different page from the site being returned for the search, or suddenly not ranking whatsoever due to this matter of pages disappearing from the index. We are talking about product detail pages with >100 customer reviews and other UCG, tons of backlinks etc.
Interestingly, a handful of pages and terms seem to have corrected overnight. Not all - but a handful. We updated sitemaps yesterday and added some sketchy domains to our disavow file last night. None of the "usual suspects" types of issues explain this phenomenon.
-
According to Moz there haven't been any significant algorithm updates since October 2019 - https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change. If you check Algoroo (https://algoroo.com/) there's some noise on Dec 20th but it's not 'out of this world' or crazy. Looking at SERPMetrics Flux it doesn't look like a time of major changes on Google: https://serpmetrics.com/flux/
It must be something specifically related to your website or your website's presence (backlinks etc). It could also be a factor of operating in a competitive query-space. Maybe your results didn't go down, maybe the rankings of other sites went 'up'
I wouldn't expect the problem to 'just go away on its own', that almost never happens
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 Layout Updates and Mobile Pages with Ads
I have been trying to do some research on the Page Layout Algorithm and Top Heavy Ads and much of what I read does not mention about mobile pages as apposed to desktop. I am curious if the Page Layout updates can be effected by mobile pages as well and if there is any good articles on this subject. Also is this Algorithm been incorporated into its regular algorithm or do we still have to wait for refreshes to see the impact? Cesar
On-Page Optimization | | cbielich0 -
Is it convinient to use No-Index, Follow to my Paginated Pages?
I have a website http://www.naukrigulf.com and it has a lot of Paginated pages on its SERP and most of paginated pages are getting indexed in Google SERP. Is it beneficial to use No-Index, Follow to keep the link equity to main (first page), although we have already used rel=next and rel=prev. If Answer is "yes" is their any harm by using no-index, follow with rel=next, rel=prev.
On-Page Optimization | | vivekrathore0 -
How can I reduce Too Many On-Page Links? I am looking for best method through which I can reduce by on page link.
Hello, As I have the Pro Account in SEOMOZ . I have created the campaign for my website and I have seen the warring for on page analysis for Too Many On-Page Links. As per my knowledge in past it's matter that you can put maximum 100 links per page but now is it still matter or harm if pages has Too Many On-Page Links? And if yest then please let me know the best method to reduce my On-Page Links with out doing any major changes in website
On-Page Optimization | | jemindesai0 -
Does Archive pages help in indexation of the site?
Hello, we have an argue internally regarding if we should keep the archive pages on a news site or not. Pro Archive pages help indexation of the news. although not all of us are sure about this. Con archive pages receive from none to little traffic archive pages are source of duplicate content, duplicate titles - which we can manage some how but does it worth? What is your opinion on this topic, should we keep it or not? thanks, Irina
On-Page Optimization | | InformMedia0 -
Is reported duplication on the pages or their canonical pages?
There are several sections getting flagged for duplication on one of our sites: http://mysite.com/section-1/?something=X&confirmed=true
On-Page Optimization | | Safelincs
http://mysite.com/section-2/?something=X&confirmed=true
http://mysite.com/section-3/?something=X&confirmed=true Each of the above are showing as having duplicates of the other sections. Indeed, these pages are exactly the same (it's just an SMS confirmation page you enter your code in), however, they all have canonical links back to the section (without the query string), i.e. section-1, section-2 and section-3 respectively. These three sections have unique content and aren't flagged up for duplications themselves, so my questions are: Are the pages with the query strings the duplicates, and if so why are the canonical links being ignored? or Are the canonical pages without the query strings the duplicates, and if so why don't they appear as URLs in their own right in the duplicate content report? I am guessing it's the former, but I can't figure out why it would ignore the canonical links. Any ideas? Thanks0 -
How do you fix on page SEO ?
I have been trying to push my foundation website in organic search results for competitive keywords , i have been not been so consistent in raking our website in top search results of Google. can some one recommend the guidelines and activities which can really push my websites to Google first page. More Info: about our foundation We are the worlds largest school meal run ngo in the world feeding over 1.3 million school children in India Wesite url www.akshayapatra.org
On-Page Optimization | | AkshayaPatra0 -
Multiple silos/products/landing pages. How to design the root page for conversion?
Hi everyone, First post. Tried a few awkward searches on the topic but I must be using bad keywords. I'm re-designing a site that has multiple products and matching multiple audiences. This means we have multiple sillos for multiple groups of keywords with the supporting pages for each silo landing page. Currently I'm working on updating the look and text of those landing pages for each silo to increase conversion. This leaves me with the root web page. We get quite a lot of search traffic from people searching our brand name - so this results in clicks straight through to our root domain. There are no product specific landing pages because it could be any one of the 3-5 different personas we have hitting the site from that source. Does anyone have any good examples of where a site has had multiple products and needed to segregate their audience on a root top page? I'd like to see some examples and hear peoples thoughts. At the moment I'm thinking I need to fill that page up with trust factors as to why people should use us as a company, along with navigational elements in relation to each and every product so they can click through to the proper landing page. The main way I can see on executing that is to have a rotating banner with the same tag line "this is what we do" but be alternating between banners relating to each product.. with their own click through button to go to the respective landing page. Thoughts anyone? Example of sites doing this well?
On-Page Optimization | | specific0 -
Duplicate content issues with products page 1,2,3 and so on
Hi, we have this products page, for example of a landing page:
On-Page Optimization | | Essentia
http://www.redwrappings.com.au/australian-made/gift-ideas and then we have the link to page 2,3,4 and so on:
http://www.redwrappings.com.au/products.php?c=australian-made&p=2
http://www.redwrappings.com.au/products.php?c=australian-made&p=3 In SEOmoz, they are recognized as duplicate page contents.
What would be the best way to solve this problem? One easy way i can think of is to nominate the first landing page to be the 'master' page (http://www.redwrappings.com.au/australian-made/gift-ideas), and add canonical meta links on page 2,3 and so on. Any other suggestions? Thanks 🙂0