I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
-
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem."
Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority."
So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too
Dana
-
Agreed on all counts Jason, not to mention the improved customer experience because we won't have people landing on those God-awful ugly and useless pages!
From a server perspective, could deleting 8,000 files (pages, images, PDFs) results in our site speed improving too? Or would it likely have no impact?
-
So you have roughly 8,500 pages that are part of your customer experience and that you want customers to be able to navigate to from your site and presumably would like customers to find on Google. (from Screaming Frog).
But only 7,500 only pages are in Google's index. So best case, roughly 1,000 of your good pages (almost 12% of all the pages on your site) don't exist in organic search. Worst case, is that some of those 7,500 pages in google are depreciated pages that aren't part of your active site, making the percentage of live pages in google even worse.
It's very possible that a portion of your google crawl budget is being consumed by pages that don't help you. If you get those pages out of the index, you stand a better chance to get your 1000 good pages into the index.
-
Hi Jason,
Ok, here is what I saw in Screaming Frog:
27,616 total spidered URLs, of which:
- 8,494 are HTML pages
- 45 are CSS files
- 14,687 are images
- 4,287 are PDFs
Google says we have only 7,540 URLs indexed (of all types) - I know for a fact that at least 500 orphaned pages are indexed in Google. It seems to me, then, that Google is indexing content that isn't important to us, and perhaps not indexing other content that is important to us because it's having trouble telling what's important and what's not.
Any insights on that Jason? What do you make of it?
-
Hi Jason,
I'm just following up as I get my ducks in a row on this one. Above in your comment you said "Google Count of Pages - Screaming Frog count of Pages = # of Orphaned Pages" - to be perfectly accurate, this would only give me the number of orphaned pages that are indexed. There could be many additional orphaned pages that are not in Google's index.
My follow up question is, should I be concerned about those too? Or are orphaned pages that aren't indexed not worth cleaning up? I think I already know the answer (Yes! Clean those up too because they can interfere with crawl rate and site speed...)....but I want to know your take on it please. Thanks so much!
Dana
-
Tempting! Very tempting.:-)
-
I would not do this if I was an employee... but.... I would ask him to bet me an amount that would be equivalent to about "one month's pay" on the results.
He is a chicken so he wouldn't accept that bet. And if he did accept I would want it in writing.
-
Thanks EGOL. You made me chuckle, because all of these things crossed my mind. I did go home mad yesterday, and I don't get mad very easily or very often. I usually welcome the idea of explaining SEO strategies and tactics to newbies and laypeople (as is evidenced by my many posts here in Q & A).
Let's just say - my feelers are out looking at other possibilities.
-
In my opinion, the links are still evaporating pagerank.
If some of these pages are still in the index they could be counting as thin/duplicate content.
-
What would your response be to that?
- thinks for a while *
I would be mad about this. This is why I prefer to be self-employed.
I don't know the temperament or personality of this person.
I might not be working there much longer.
It seems to me that the effort required to cut links into these pages is tiny and the potential for gain is pretty high.
Downside risk is zero. Upside opportunity is good. He is a chicken and a fool.
-
EGOL, I thought I would just follow up on these thin content "Reviews/Ratings" pages. They are blocked from Google crawling them via the robots.txt file. Is this enough? Or are they still diluting the product page's authority just by being there?
Thanks!
Dana
-
Thanks EGOL,
And yes, they are.
The comment I received when trying to explain that those links were draining authority off the product pages was "No they aren't. Whatever PageRank the product page has, it has, regardless of whether the links are there or not."
What would your response be to that? I tried to explain it several different ways, but he just looked at me like I was full of malarkey...He is a visual person. Perhaps I should try a diagram?
It's difficult going into a situation like this when the opening premise in the other person's mind is that he knows more about SEO than I do, because all SEO is in his mind is a bunch of guesswork.
Sorry, moral's a bit low in my heart at the moment. I work too hard and study too hard at what I do to have someone who maybe read's a blog about SEO occasionally to come in and treat me like I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Thanks very much for responding. I appreciate it mucho!
Dana
-
Thanks Jason,
These are great suggestions and are exactly the kinds of things that will give me the proof I need to convince him that removing these is a worthwhile endeavor. I'm off to do them now and will come back here and post my discoveries.
Dana
-
Are these those thin content, duplicate content, review and email pages?
There are links into those pages that are evaporating pagerank.
Two links on each of your product pages are being wasted.
If they are getting indexed then they are dead weight on your site and make your site look like a skimpy spammy publisher.
-
By "orphaned" do you mean pages that are no longer linked to your site navigation taxonomy?
If you know the subject matter and/or URLs, you can easy show your boss that they are indexed: Google "site:oursite.com orphaned topic" and show him all the pages in the google index.
If you can't find the pages, then do a complete crawl of your site with Screaming Frog and see how many pages it finds. Now compare that number with how many pages Google has in your index in Google Webmaster Tools (under Health -> Index Status). Google Count of Pages - Screaming Frog count of Pages = # of Orphaned Pages.
Now to see if those pages are hurting you, run them through Open Site Explorer to see if any of them have backlinks. If so, they are diluting your SEO efforts. Even if not, look at your crawl stats in Google Webmaster tools under Health and see how many pages you're getting crawled per day. If it's a fraction of your total pages, then if you got rid of the orphaned pages, you could be getting your important pages crawled more regularly.
I hope that helps.
Jason "Retailgeek" Goldberg
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
-
Local SEO: Spain - having trouble getting to first page
Dear, Moz community We are an online advertising website / direcotry. Lately we discovered that our website due to technical error was in English rather than Spanish and was not ranking in the local Spanish google.es at all. After changing the main language we quickly climbed to 2nd page with rankings in google.es . **My question is on top of regular SEO (Link building, content, blog) what could we do to help us rank quicker in local google.es. ** The same keyword ranks in google.com as #3 but not in Spain. Should we put in the effort to work with local directories? Google MyBusiness is not an option as we are not a bricks and mortar business.
Technical SEO | | advertisingcloud0 -
Help! added WWW to wordpress site and now lost SEO ranking
Hi there Everyone! I have recently added a www to my wordpress website by going to settings>general and adding "www" to the wordpress address and the site address. After i did that i lost my SEO ranking, and also that MOZ is detecting that im getting site crawl issues stating that i have duplicate pages. an example is below: http://www.mefco.co.nz/news http://mefco.co.nz/news any ideas on how to fix this?
Technical SEO | | jfactor0 -
Need to de-index certain pages fast
I need to de-index certain pages as fast as possible. These pages are already indexed. What is the fastest way to do this? I have added the noindex meta tag and run a few of the pages through Search Console/Webmaster tools (fetch as google) earlier today, however nothing has changed yet. The 'fetch as google' services do see the noindex tag, but it haven't changed the SERPs yet. I now I should be patient, but if there is a faster way to get Google to de-index these pages, I want to try that. I am considering the removal tool also, but I'm unsure if that is risky to do. And even if it's not, I can understand it's not a permanent solution anyway. What to do?
Technical SEO | | WebGain0 -
What is the best practice to re-index the de-indexed pages due to a bad migration
Dear Mozers, We have a Drupal site with more than 200K indexed URLs. Before 6 months a bad website migration happened without proper SEO guidelines. All the high authority URLs got rewritten by the client. Most of them are kept 404 and 302, for last 6 months. Due to this site traffic dropped more than 80%. I found today that around 40K old URLs with good PR and authority are de-indexed from Google (Most of them are 404 and 302). I need to pass all the value from old URLs to new URLs. Example URL Structure
Technical SEO | | riyas_
Before Migration (Old)
http://www.domain.com/2536987
(Page Authority: 65, HTTP Status:404, De-indexed from Google) After Migration (Current)
http://www.domain.com/new-indexed-and-live-url-version Does creating mass 301 redirects helps here without re-indexing the old URLS? Please share your thoughts. Riyas0 -
Duplicate Page Content error but I can't see it
Hi All We're getting a lot of Duplicate Page Content errors but I can't match it up. For example this page: http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/32-antique-cottage It is saying the on page properties as follows: Title DayTripFinder - Things to do reviewed by you - 7,000 attractions <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">Meta Description</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">Read Reviews, Browse Opening Hours and Prices. View Photos, Maps. 7,000 UK Visitor Attractions.</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">But this isn't the page title or meta description.
Technical SEO | | KateWaite85
</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">And it's showing five (many others) example pages that share it. Again the page titles and description are different.</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/mckinlay-theatre</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/bakers-dolphin</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/shipley-park-fishing</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/king-johns-lodge-and-gardens</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/city-hall
</dt> Any ideas? Not sure if I'm missing something here! Thanks!0 -
Do I need to add canonical link tags to pages that I promote & track w/ UTM tags?
New to SEOmoz, loving it so far. I promote content on my site a lot and am diligent about using UTM tags to track conversions & attribute data properly. I was reading earlier about the use of link rel=canonical in the case of duplicate page content and can't find a conclusive answer whether or not I need to add the canonical tag to these pages. Do I need the canonical tag in this case? If so, can the canonical tag live in the HEAD section of the original / base page itself as well as any other URLs that call that content (that have UTM tags, etc)? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | askotzko1 -
Help with SEO
Hello, I am brand new to SEO and I'm learning on the go everyday. I am having issues with Google and getting any sort of ranking or analysis or even just traffic reports. I understand the site has never really been optimized so it might really not have any reports. So basically my real question is what helpful tricks or hints do you guys have that I can implement? Anything and everything helps. So far I have run the crawl diagnostics and I'm working on fixing the errors. Thanks fr your help.
Technical SEO | | Future130 -
CSS for SEO - can search engine see the text in the body?
We use CSS to arranging (absolute positioning) our content to makes it easier to crawl. I am using your On-Page Keyword Optimization tool and other tools to check our pages (i.e. http://www.psprint.com/gallery/invitation-cards), to make sure it works. For the “On-Page Keyword Optimization” tool, it gives a petty good grade (I guest it sees the text in the body). However, when I am using other tool to test the page (e.g. http://tools.seobook.com/general/spider-test/) it could not see the text in the body. Did we do something wrong? Thanks Tom
Technical SEO | | tomchu0