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
-
When you get a new inbound link do you submit a request to google to reindex the new page pointing at you?
I'm just starting my link building campaign in earnest, and received my first good quality inbound link less than an hour ago. My initial thought was that I should go directly to google, and ask them to reindex the page that linked to me... If I make a habit of that (getting a new link, then submitting that page directly to google), would that signify to google that this might not be a natural link building campaign? The links are from legitimate (non-paid, non-exchange) partners, which google could probably figure out, but I'm interested to know opinions on this. Thanks, -Eric
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ForForce0 -
Strange strategy from a competitor. Is this "Google Friendly"?
Hi all,We have a client from a very competitive industry (car insurance) that ranks first for almost every important and relevant keyword related to car insurance.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | sixam
But they could always be doing a good job. A few days ago i found this: http://logo.force.com/ The competitor website is: http://www.logo.pt/ The competitor name is: Logo What I found strange is the fact that both websites are the same, except the fact that the first is in a sub-domain and have important links pointing to the original website (www.logo.pt) So my question is, is this a "google friendly" (and fair) technique? why this competitor has such good results? Thanks in advance!! I look forward to hearing from you guys0 -
How do you change the 6 links under your website in Google?
Hello everyone, I have no idea how to ask this question, so I'm going to give it a shot and hopefully someone can help me!! My company is called Eteach, so when you type in Eteach into Google, we come in the top position (phew!) but there are 6 links that appear underneath it (I've added a picture to show what I mean). How do you change these links?? I don't even know what to call them, so if there is a particular name for these then please let me know! They seem to be an organic rank rather than PPC...but if I'm wrong then do correct me! Thanks! zorIsxH.jpg
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eteach_Marketing0 -
Should I Even Bother Trying To Recover This Site After Google Penguin?
Hello all, I would like to get your opinion on whether I should invest time and money to improve a website which was hit by Google Penguin in April 2014. (I know, April 2014 was nearly 2 years ago. However, this site has not been a top priority for us and we have just left until now). The site is www.salmonrecipes.net Basically, we aggregated over 700 salmon recipes from major supermarkets, famous chefs, and others (all with their permission) and made them available on this site. It was a good site at the time but it is showing its age now. For a few years we were occasionally #1 on Google in the US for "salmon recipes", but normally we would be between #2 and #4. We made money from the site almost entirely through Adsense. We never made a huge amount, but it paid our office rent every month, which was handy. We also built up an email database of several thousand followers, but we've not really used this much. (Yet). In the year from 25th April 2011 to 24th April 2012 the site attracted just over 500k visits. After the rankings dropped due to Google Penguin, traffic dropped by 77% in the year from 25th April 2011 to 24th April 2012. Rankings and traffic have not recovered at all, and are only getting worse. I am happy to accept that we deserved our rankings to fall during the Google Penguin re-shuffle. I stupidly commissioned an offshore company to build lots of links which, in hindsight, were basically just spam, and totally without any real value. However they assured me it was safe and I trusted them, despite my own nagging reservations. Anyway, I have full details of all the links they created, and therefore I could remove many of these 'relatively' easily. (Of course, removing hundreds of links would take a lot of time). My questions ... 1. How can I evaluate the probability of this site 'recovering' from Google Penguin. I am willing to invest time/money on link removal and new (ethical) SEO work if there is a reasonable chance of regaining a position in the top 5 on Google (US) for "salmon recipes" and various long-tail terms. But I am keen to avoid spending time/money on this if it is unlikely we will recover. How can I figure out my chances? 2. Generally, I accept that this model of site is in decline. Relying on Google to drive traffic to a site, and on Google to produce revenue via its Adsense scheme, is risky and not entirely sensible. Also, Google seems to provide more and more 'answers' itself, rather than sending people to e.g. a website listing recipes. Given this, is it worth investing any money in this at all? 3. Can you recommend anyone who specialises in this kind of recovery work. (As I said, I have a comprehensive list of all the links that were built, etc). OK, that is all for now. I am really looking forward to whatever opinions you may have about this. I'll provide more info if required. Huge thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | smaavie
David0 -
External Followed Links Over Time Nasty Drop HELP!
I had someone help me with SEO and they basically used some stupid form to get back-links I am still learning and have taken over my site to better do things right. I have had a major drop across the board since Panda and Pinguin and rightfully so from what I am seeing. My question is: Google obviously removed the backlinks and SEO MOZ shows this in its report. Do I need to disavow these links still or can I just focus on link building properly? What is the best course of action here? gGuSyJf
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | megapixall0 -
How to transform an excel file on a txt file to send the Google Dissavow
I have a disallow file made on excel with lots of columns off information. I want to transform to txt file saving it from excel, but the result file seems understandable Can someone helpme on how to transform an excel file on the Google Dissavow file format for the final import
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
My website disapeared from google rankings, please help?
Our website url is http://www.phoria.com Around January 16th we disappeared from google for the keyword 'kratom' We were on page 3 for the longest time. We have no critical messages in webmaster tools however I did notice most of our links seem to be website directory links.We still rank for a couple terms like buy kratom on page 6.I think a google update occurred around this time so I've read however if we had a variety of links that went against google guidelines wouldn't we have received a message stating so in Webmaster Tools?This month has been very confusing to say the least. Any help would be appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | gregdotcom0 -
Google-backed sites' link profiles
Curious what you SEO people think of the link profiles of these (high-ranking) Google-backed UK sites: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.startupdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.lawdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.marketingdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.itdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.taxdonut.co.uk Each site has between 40k and 50k inlinks counted in OSE. However, there are relatively few linking root domains in each case: 273 for marketingdonut 216 for startupdonut 90 for lawdonut 53 for itdonut 16 for taxdonut Is there something wrong with the OSE data here? Does this imply that the average root domain linking to the taxdonut site does so with 2857 links? The sites have no significant social media stats. The sites are heavily inter-linked. Also linked from the operating business, BHP Information Solutions (tagline "Gain access to SMEs"). Is this what Google would think of as a "natural" link profile? Interestingly, they've managed to secure links on quite a few UK local authority resources pages - generally being the only commercial website on those pages.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seqal0