Bing's indexed pages vs pages appearing in results
-
Hi all
We're trying to increase our efforts in ranking for our keywords on Bing, and I'm discovering a few unexpected challenges. Namely, Bing is reporting 16000+ pages have been crawled... yet a site:mywebsite.com search on Bing shows less than 1000 results.
I'm aware that Duane Forrester has said they don't want to show everything, only the best. If that's the case, what factors must we consider most to encourage Bing's engine to display most if not all of the pages the crawl on my site?
I have a few ideas of what may be turning Bing off so to speak (some duplicate content issues, 301 redirects due to URL structure updates), but if there's something in particular we should monitor and/or check, please let us know. We'd like to prioritize
Thanks!
-
Yep, if Bing Webmaster Tools doesn't show problems with the sitemap, I'd focus on the points I highlighted back in mid-June on this thread (make content robust, unique, and make sure text is in HTML).
Good luck,
Kristina
-
Hello again Kristina
Bing's showing 38,885 pages indexed... and I've noticed the amount of pages vary after clicking through several pages.
So I guess the problem isn't why aren't they indexing, but rather why aren't they showing all pages. I'd assume this is related to page quality (content, on-page ranking factors, etc)?
-
I haven't heard of Bing keeping historically submitted sitemaps and confusing them, although I know that they're very picky about the number of inaccuracies they find in a sitemap, so it's possible they keep the latest one around so they can refer to it if the current one seems to have holes.
That said - when you search for your site, are the same pages coming up on the first page? What about the second? Third? The number of pages that come up when you search for site:mysite.com are approximations and can vary even as you scroll through the results pages. The more important question is, how many pages does Bing say are indexed in Bing Webmaster Tools?
-
Just an update:
Bing reported a successful crawl after submitting a new one, then rejected it based on an error that it didn't describe. Took it down, made a change to URL itself (somehow the .gz extension wasn't there) and resubmitted on 7/7/13.
Since then, Bing has reported a successful crawl, then reported a successful crawl on 6/30/13 (7 days before submission?), then reported a failed crawl on 7/5/13 (2 days before submission?) and now today again reporting a successful crawl on 7/7/13.
So my question now is... does Bing keep record of historically submitted sitemaps and confuse them with new submissions of the same ones? I've yet to see Bing actually index what's in the sitemaps, as a site: operator search is still a daily fluctuation between 1200 and 3300 results, sometimes going up to 4400. But again, this is daily. Right now, searching site:roadtrippers.com on Bing reports 4,420 results. Later today, I imagine it'll be around 3,300 or 1,200.
Any suggestions at all would be greatly appreciated.
-
Good luck!
If these tips don't work, you should follow up here again, but include a little more information about your site. It's possible that Bing IS crawling all of your pages properly, but something about them is making Bing think that they aren't valuable enough to be in their indexes. I'd particularly look to see if:
- Content seems to be duplicate, either within your site or if it's duplicated elsewhere
- Content is extremely thin (less than 100 words on a page/no unique text above the fold)
- Content is unreadable by Bing: check the cached version of a page that's not indexed and make sure you can read the unique content
Hope this helps! I'm going to mark this question as "answered," only because if you have a follow up question, it'll probably be more specific now that you have more information, and I'd like all of that info to be included in the original question.
Best,
Kristina
-
Hey Kristina
It has not unfortunately.
Bing reports successful crawls, however it's not crawling it - at all.
After reading more about Bing's sitemap preferences, there are a few things left to try. I'm using this post on Bing's forums http://www.bing.com/blogs/webmaster/f/12248/t/659635.aspx#9602607 as a reference for now. We're going to make a temporary separate sitemap for Bing to test what is suggested in that link. Hopefully something sticks and we can make some progress going forward!
Brandon
-
Hi Brandon,
Just wanted to check in - did using 1 sitemap work?
Kristina
-
I believe I've found the solution - as recently as 2009, Bing was only crawling one sitemap per website. It also said Bing would only crawl the most recently submitted sitemap but it doesn't appear that was the case for our site.
So I've since removed the old sitemap and am waiting to see some evidence of our new sitemap being crawled and indexed.
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
-
Training - How Google Crawls & Indexes Websites
Hi Does anyone know of any online training resources/webinars/training UK based that will cover the following for SEO: Why monitoring how search engines crawl and index content is important and how this can improve your SEO performance Using Google advanced operators to evaluate website indexation How to use log file data to gain insight into how search engines crawl and index content Techniques to control how search engines crawl and index content How search engines deal with JavaScript, common frameworks and SEO considerations I'm trying to develop my technical knowledge - I have always been more focused on content/KWD research/optimisation. Thank you
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
Does the more number of ranking pages improve the website ranking?
Hi all, Let's say there is a website with 100 pages ad 95 pages are not ranking for any keywords; but the other 5 pages including homepage are ranking for some keywords. In this scenario, the 95% non-ranking pages does impact the other 5% pages rankings? Or every page holds their credibility in ranking irrespective of other pages in website? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Keyword optimisation: Google's eyes before users' eyes?
Hi all, So the default and ultimate suggestion about how to rank a page high is to get favoured by users, so by the Google. But if write content in favour of users, it may miss out the keywords or will not have much keyword density and variety of keywords to get in to Google's eyes. Then we may appear around 3rd page; then how do we get into top slots? I can see some top results without even a single mention of the keyword they are ranking for. How that would be possible? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Does Google's Information Box Seem Shady to you?
So I just had this thought, Google returns information boxes for certain search terms. Recently I noticed one word searches usually return a definition. For example if you type in the word "occur" or "happenstance" or "frustration" you get a definition information box. But what I didn't see is a reference to where they are getting or have gotten this information. Now it could very well be they built their own database of definitions, and if they did great, but here is where it seems a bit grey to me... Did Google hire a team of people to populate the database, or did they just write an algorithm to comb a dictionary website and stick the information in their database. The latter seems more likely. If that is what happened then Google basically stole the information from somebody to claim it as their own, which makes me worry, if you coin a term, lets say "lumpy stumpy" and it goes mainstream which would entail a lot of marketing, and luck. Would Google just add it to its database and forgo giving you credit for its creation? From a user perspective I love these information boxes, but just like Google expects us webmasters to do, they should be giving credit where credit is due... don't you think? I'm not plugged in to the happenings of Google so maybe they bought the rights, or maybe they bought or hold a majority of shares in some definition type company (they have the cash) but it just struck me as odd not seeing a reference to a site. What are your thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | donford1 -
Flux in Bing/Yahoo search rankings?
Has anyone else noticed any flux in Bing/Yahoo desktop search rankings in the start of March? Our weekly MSN search traffic was steady and then starting dropping off around March 3 or 4. Weekly desktop traffic now down about 20% Anyone see anything similar or have any resources for learning more about this?
Algorithm Updates | | ted-zarceczny0 -
Quickest way to deindex a large number of pages
Our site was recently hacked by spammers posting fake content and bringing down our servers, etc. After a few months, we finally figured out what was going on and fixed the issue. However, it turns out that Google has indexed 26K+ spammy pages and we've lost page rank and search engine rankings as a result. What is the best and fastest way to get these pages out of Google's index?
Algorithm Updates | | powpowteam0 -
Why are rich snippets not appearing?
I'm helping out on a site (www.treadmillreviewguru.com) which formerly had rich snippets appearing in Google. They use hCard markup. All of the markup is visible on the page. The search preview in Google's rich snippets testing tool show a picture, a rating and all that. However, nothing is appearing in search results. Here is an example page: http://www.treadmillreviewguru.com/nordictrack-treadmill-reviews/nordictrack-commercial-1750-treadmill-reviews-ratings/ This page ranks in the top ten (for me, global results) when I search [nordictrack commercial 1750 treadmill review]. Does anyone know why Google would display the rich snippets a few weeks ago and then not display any at all?
Algorithm Updates | | DanDeceuster0 -
Local SEO url format & structure: ".com/albany-tummy-tuck" vs ".com/tummy-tuck" vs ".com/procedures/tummy-tuck-albany-ny" etc."
We have a relatively new site (re: August '10) for a plastic surgeon who opened his own solo practice after 25+ years with a large group. Our current url structure goes 3 folders deep to arrive at our tummy tuck procedure landing page. The site architecture is solid and each plastic surgery procedure page (e.g. rhinoplasty, liposuction, facelift, etc.) is no more than a couple clicks away. So far, so good - but given all that is known about local seo (which is a very different beast than national seo) quite a bit of on-page/architecture work can still be done to further improve our local rank. So here a a couple big questions facing us at present: First, regarding format, is it a given that using geo keywords within the url indispustibly and dramatically impacts a site's local rank for the better (e.g. the #2 result for "tummy tuck" and its SHENANIGANS level use of "NYC", "Manhattan", "newyorkcity" etc.)? Assuming that it is, would we be better off updating our cosmetic procedure landing page urls to "/albany-tummy-tuck" or "/albany-ny-tummy-tuck" or "/tummy-tuck-albany" etc.? Second, regarding structure, would we be better off locating every procedure page within the root directory (re: "/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/") or within each procedure's proper parent category (re: "/facial-rejuvenation/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/")? From what I've read within the SEOmoz Q&A, adding that parent category (e.g. "/breast-enhancement/breast-lift") is better than having every link in the root (i.e. completely flat). Third, how long before google updates their algorithm so that geo-optimized urls like http://www.kolkermd.com/newyorkplasticsurgeon/tummytucknewyorkcity.htm don't beat other sites who do not optimize so aggressively or local? Fourth, assuming that each cosmetic procedure page will eventually have strong link profiles (via diligent, long term link building efforts), is it possible that geo-targeted urls will negatively impact our ability to rank for regional or less geo-specific searches? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | WDeLuca0