Massive drop in Google traffic after upping pagecount 8-fold.
-
I run a book recommendation site -- Flashlight Worthy.
It's a collection of original, topical book lists: "The Best Books for Healthy (Vegetarian) Babies" or "Keystone Mysteries: The Best Mystery Books Set in Pennsylvania" or "5 Books That Helped Me Discover and Love My Italian Heritage".
It's been online for 4+ years.
Historically, it's been made up of:
-
a single home page
-
~50 "category" pages, and
-
~425 "book list" pages.
(That 50 number and 425 number both started out much smaller and grew over time but has been around 425 for the last year or so as I've focused my time elsewhere.)
On Friday, June 15 we made a pretty big change to the site -- we added a page for every Author who has a book that appears on a list. This took the number of pages in our sitemap from ~500 to 4,149 overnight.
If an Author has more than one book on the site, the page shows every book they have on the site, such as this page:
http://www.flashlightworthybooks.com/books-by/Roald-Dahl/2805
..but the vast majority of these author pages have just one book listed, such as this page:
http://www.flashlightworthybooks.com/books-by/Barbara-Kilarski/2116
Obviously we did this as an SEO play -- we figured that our content was getting ~1,000 search entries a day for such a wide variety of queries that we may as well create pages that would make natural landing pages for a broader array of queries.
And it was working... 5 days after we launched the pages, they had ~100 new searches coming in from Google.
(Ok, it peaked at 100 and dropped down to a steady 60 or so day within a few days, but still. And then it trailed off for the last week, dropping lower and lower every day as if they realized it was repurposed content from elsewhere on our site...)
Here's the problem:
For the last several years the site received ~30,000 search entries a month... a little more than 1,000 a day on weekdays, a little lighter on weekends. This ebbed and flowed a bit as Google made tweaked things (Panda for example), as we garnered fresh inbound links, as the GoodReads behemoth stole some traffic... but by and large, traffic was VERY stable.
And then, on Saturday, exactly 3 weeks after we added all these pages, the bottom fell out of our search traffic. Instead of ~1,000 entries a day, we've had ~300 on Saturday and Sunday and it looks like we'll have a similar amount today.
And I know this isn't just some Analytics reporting problem as Chartbeat is showing the same drop. As search is ~80% of my traffic I'm VERY eager to solve this problem...
So:
1. Do you think the drop is related to my upping my pagecount 8-fold overnight?
2. Do you think I'd climb right back into Google's good graces if I removed all the pages at once? Or just all the pages that only list one author (which would be the vasy majority).
3. Have you ever heard of a situation like this? Where Google "punishes" a site for creating new pages out of existing content? Really, it's useful content -- and these pages are better "answers" for a lot of queries. When someone searches for "Norah Ephron books" it's better they land on a page of ours that pulls together the 4 books we have than taking them to a page that happens to have just one book on it among 5 or 6 others by other authors.
What else?
Thanks so much, help is very appreciated.
Peter
Flashlight Worthy Book Recommendations
Recommending books so good, they'll keep you up past your bedtime. -
-
Thanks for updating on your findings. That is interesting, but glad you got it sorted.
-
And now another update. About 1 week after removing all the new content, search traffic came right back to where it was. So clearly Google was mad at me. And now they're not. Sigh. Stupid Google.
-
UPDATE: I've removed all the new pages from my site in hopes that it will turn around my losss is search traffic. I'd still like an expert opinion on the matter in general.
-
Indeed, I looked at Webmaster Tools -- no duplicates.
As far as Canonical, while I know and love that feature, I don't think it's relevant here. These pages aren't different URLs for the same content -- they're segments of content taken from different pages, stitched together in a new and useful way.
I think, if this is the problem, that it's the fact that 95% of the new pages only have 1 item of content on them and it's a piece of content that appears elsewhere on the site.
-
Hi Peter
I agree Matt Cutts wasn't very clear as providing a solid number, but I actually consider what he said about relativity. "..if your site was 1 day .. um you know nothing, then the next day there is 4 million pages in our index" seems to me like he was hinting a percentage rather then a hard number. In your case you increased your site by over a 1000% with no new content.
From a useability standpoint it maybe awesome, from an SEO standpoint it may not. I can't say for sure the best way to handle it, but if it was me I would not throw away the benefit to my users, I instead would look to see if I can canonicalize any of these pages to prevent lower the burden on Google to try and differentiate one page from another.
Have looked at your Google Webmaster Tools to see if they are seeing some pages as duplicates?
-
Don, thatnks for replying. In answer to your questions:
-- Yes we added all the pages to the sitemap.
--As far as the content being unique, no -- not one word on any of the pages is unique. But the aggregation of the information onto those pages is unique and helpful to the end user. For example, say you had a site full of movies that won Oscars -- winners of 2010, all movies that won Best Director, all movies that won best Music, etc. Now imagine you'd like to see all the Tom Hanks movies that have won Oscars. There are a number of Tom Hanks movies scattered across the lists but there's no easy way to see them all at once. So generating a list of Tom Hanks movies that won Oscars is easy and useful. Only problem is, about 95% of the time when you generate such lists, you'll generate them for actors that were only in 1 Oscar-winning movie... hence a bunch of pages that are of little use. But why would that hurt traffic to all the pages that HAVE been of use for the last several years?
That Matt Cutts video was interesting... but I'm not sure if there's a clear answer there. he said 100+ pages at once is fine. But 10,000... maybe not. So what about 4,500?
-
Hi Peter,
According to Matt Cutts as long as the content is quality / good / unique you should not have been dinged.
You watch his answer to a very similar question on youtube here.
Now what is interesting is you went from 500 pages to 4000 pages. That is a huge update in terms of what your site has been offering so there maybe something going on there.
Did you submit all these page in a sitemap to Google? and by nature of these pages was the content unique or snippets of the inner content?
I will add a story about our how I handled a similar situation and maybe give you something to ponder. We have an o-ring size look up section on our site, the urls being generated are dynamic and number in the thousands, due to the combination of sizes, materials, and hardness. I did not tell Google about these links in the sitemap, rather just put a link to 8 main materials in the sitemap and then let Google discover the dynamic urls on their own.
After 6 months I noticed that Google was actually treating many of the deep pages as duplicate content, so I used rel='canonical" to direct the juice to the top material pages. Our traffic and SERP ratings went up for these pages.
I tell that to illustrate what I learned, having more pages isn't always good, in my case a nitrile as568-001 oring page isn't that different from a nitrile as568-002 oring page, and while they are certainly different sizes you can find information on either one from the nitrile as568 page. The smart thing I did was not flooding Google with thousands of new pages, the dumb thing I did was not canonicalizing the deep pages to begin with.
I will be interested in what others have to say on this subject, and I hope this helps.
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
-
Why Google not disavow some bad links
I have submitted bad links that I want to disavow on google with the Moz Pro hight spam score. Its almost 4 months completed yet I have a bad link that exists with high spam score any solution? https://fortniteskinsgenerator.net/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | marktravis0 -
How to fix site breadcrumbs on mobile google search
For past one month, I have been doing some research on how to fix this issue on my website but all my efforts didn't work out I really need help on this issue because I'm worried about this I was hoping that Google will cache or understand the structure of my site and correct the error the breadcrumb is working correctly on desktop but not shown on mobile. For Example take a look at : https://www.xclusivepop.com/omah-lay-bad-influence/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Ericrodrigo0 -
Search ranking for a term dropped from 1st/2nd to 106th in 3 months
Hello all, Just a couple notes first. I have been advised to be vague on the search term we've dropped on (in case this page ranks higher than our homepage for it). If you search for my name in Google though you should be able to figure out where I work (I'm not the soccer player). While I am looking for an answer, I've also posted this question on a couple other forums (see https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4934323.htm and https://productforums.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/webmasters/AQLD7lywuvo/2zfFRD6oGAAJ) which have thrown up more questions than answers. So I have posted this as a discussion. We've also been told we may have been under a negative SEO attack. We saw in SEMRush a large number of backlinks in October/November/December - at about the same time we disavowed around 1m backlinks (more on this below) but we can't see this reflected in Moz. We just got off a call with someone at Moz to try and work this out and he suggested we post here - so here goes... On 4th October for the search term 'example-term' we dropped from number 2 to number 9 on Google searches (this was confirmed in Google Search Console). We also paid an external SEO consultant to review our site and see why we are dropping on the term 'example-term'. We've implemented everything and we're still dropping, the consultant thinks we may have been penalised in error (as we are a legitimate business and we're not trying to do anything untoward). In search console you could see from the graphs on the term we used to rank 1st and 2nd (you could go back 2 or 3 years and still see this). The thing we do find confusing is that we still rank very highly (if not 1st) for 'example-term + uk' and our brand name - which is very similar to 'example-term'. Timeline of events of changes: 2nd October 2018 midday: Added a CTA using something called Wisepops over the homepage - this was a full screen CTA for people to pledge on a project on our site helping with the tsunami in Indonesia (which may have had render blocking elements on). 4th October: we added a Google MyBusiness page showing our corporate headquarters as being in the UK (we did flag this on the Google MyBusiness forums and both people who responded said adding a MyBusiness page would not affect our drop in rankings). 4th October: dropped from number 2 to number 9 on Google searches (this was confirmed in Google Search Console) 4th October: Removed the Wisepops popup 5th November: Server redirect so anything coming in on / was redirected to a page without a / 12th November: Removed around 200 junk pages (so old pages, test cms pages etc that were live and still indexed). Redirects from any 404s resolved 19th November: Updated site maps and video site maps to reflect new content and remove old content. Reviewed the whole site for duplicate meta tags and titles and updated accordingly with unique ones. Fixed issues in Google Search Console for Google search console for 404 and Mobile usability. Removed embedded YouTube video from homepage. 11th December: Removed old content and content seen as not useful from indexing; 'honey pot' pages, old blog, map pages, user profile pages, project page ‘junk pages which have little SEO value’ (comments, contact project owner, backers, report project) from indexing, added ‘no-follow’ to widgets linking back to us 3rd January 2019: Changed the meta title from to remove 'example-term' (we were concerned it may have been seen as keyword stuffing) 7th January: Disavow file updated to refuse a set of external sites powered by API linking to us (these were sites like example-term.externalsite.co.uk which used to link to us showing projects in local areas - our SEO expert felt may be seen as a ‘link farm’) 11th January: Updated our ‘About us’ page with more relevant content 15th January: Changed homepage title to include 'example-term' again, footer links updated to point to internal pages rather than linking off to Intercom, homepage ordering of link elements on homepage changed (so moving external rating site link further down the page, removing underlines on one item that was not a link, fixed and instance where two h1 tags were used), removed another set of external Subdomains (i.e. https://externalsite.sitename.co.uk) from our system (these were old sites we used to run for different clients which has projects in geographical areas displayed) 18th January: Added the word 'example-term' to key content pages We're at a loss as to why we are still dropping. Please note that the above changes were implemented after we'd been ranking fine for a couple years on the 'example-term' - the changes were to try and address the drop in ranking. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Nobody15554510997900 -
We have a site with a lot of international traffic, can we split the site some way?
Hello, We have a series of sites and one, in particular, has around 75,000 (20%) monthly users from the USA, but we don't currently offer them anything as our site is aimed at the UK market. The site is a .com and though we own the .co.uk the .com is the primary domain. We have had a lot of success moving other sites to have the .co.uk as the primary domain for UK traffic. However, in this case, we want to keep both the UK traffic and the US traffic and if we split it into two sites, only one can win right? What could do? It would be cool to have a US version of our site but without affecting traffic too much. On the other sites, we simply did 301 redirects from the .com page to the corresponding .co.uk page. Any ideas?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AllAboutGroup0 -
Without prerender.io, is google able to render & index geographical dynamic content?
One section of our website is built as a single page application and serves dynamic content based on geographical location. Before I got here, we had used prerender.io so google can see the page, but now that prerender.io is gone, is google able to render & index geographical dynamic content? I'm assuming no. If no is the answer, what are some solutions other than converting everything to html (would be a huge overhaul)?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | imjonny1231 -
Is this traffic drop do to cutting backlinks or Penguin 2.0 (Graphs attached)
I've attached both graphs of the traffic drop. Our website rankings have been steadily declining since May of 2013. We have mostly return customers or our drop would have been much more severe. There's never been any warnings in GWT We cut a bunch (but not all) of our paid links in May of 2013. We didn't have a manual penalty or anything, we just wanted to see what happened if we moved towards being white hat. When our rankings plumited, we quit cutting links. We currently have about 30% paid links. Penguin 2.0 was May 22, 2013 In looking at these graphs, was it our cutting links that caused the traffic drop, or was it Penguin 2.0? I'm looking for people who have experience in diagnosing a "Unique Visits" Google analytics graph for Penguin and have experience with what happens when you cut links. It looks like, in viewing the graphs, that May 23 was more the day that the big drop happened, but you guys have more experience with this than me. Thank you. ga.png ga2.png
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
Where can i see ejemple of disavow files to adapt mine in order to send to google
Can i send a disavow file to google as CSV file. Where can i see ejemple of disavow files to adapt mine in order to send to google
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
EXPERT CHALLENGE: What link building strategies do YOU think will work after the latest 3/29/2012 Google algorithm change?
FOR ALL SEO THOUGHT LEADERS...What link building strategies do YOU think will work after the latest 3/29/2012 Google algorithm change? NOTE: My hope is that the responses left on this thread will ultimately benefit all members of the community and give recognition to the true thought leaders within the SEO space. That being said, my challenge is a 2 part question: With the 80/20 rule in mind, and in light of recent algorithm changes, what would YOU focus most of your SEO budget on if you had to choose? Let's assume you're in a competitive market (ie #1-5 on page 1 has competitors with 20,000+ backlinks - all ranging from AC Rank 7 to 1). How would you split your total monthly SEO budget as a general rule? Ex) 60% link building / 10% onsite SEO / 10% Social Media / 20% content creation? I realize there are many "it depends" factors but please humor us anyways. Link building appears to have become harder and harder as google releases more and more algorithm changes. For link building, the only true white hat way of proactively generating links (that I know of) is creating high quality content that adds value to customers (ie infographics, videos, etc.), guest blogging, and Press Releases. The con to these tactics is that you are waiting for others to find and pick up your content which can take a VERY long time, so ROI is difficult to measure and justify to clients or C-level management. That being said, how are YOU allocating your link building budget? Are all of these proactive link building tactics a waste of time now? I've heard it couldn't hurt to still do some of these, but what are your thoughts and what is / isn't working for you? Here they are: A. Using spun articles edited by US based writers for guest blog content B. 301 Redirects C. Social bookmarking D. Signature links from Blog commenting E. Directory submissions F. Video Submissions G. Article Directory submissions H. Press release directory submissions I. Forum Profile Submissions J. Forum signature links K. RSS Feed submissions L. Link wheels M. Building links (using scrapebox, senukex, etc.) to pages linked to your money site N. Links from privately owned networks (I spoke to an SEO company that claims to have over 4000 unique domains which he uses to boost rankings for his clients) O. Buying Contextual Text Links All Expert opinions are welcomed and appreciated 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seoeric2