Are there any negative side effects of having millions of URLs on your site?
-
After a site upgrade, we found that we have over 3.7 million URLs on our site. Many of these URLs are due to the facet options. Each facet combination yields a different URL. However, we need to do a deeper analysis into these URLs to see if this is the only reason why so many are returning.
Does anyone know if there are any negatives of having so many URLs crawled, other than the fact that Google only spends so much time crawling a site? Is the number of URLs something that should be concerning?
Any insight appreciated!
-
Agree with the points above with one exception. Yes, you have to find a way to deal with duplicate and quality content at scale. Yes, Robots.txt, nofollow links and index sitemaps are your friends. I would not use rel=canonical unless I had to. Better to get those extra pages de-indexed and then not let Google crawl the urls with the extra parameters to start with. Why waste Google's time in crawling pages that are just resorted versions of another? If you use the directives wisely you probably "only" have 200,000 pages worth crawling if you have that many sort parameters.
Good luck!
-
I'll echo Robert's concern about duplicate content. If those facet combinations are creating many pages with very similar content, that could be an issue for you.
If, let's say, there are 100 facet combinations that create essentially the same basic page content, then consider taking facet elements that do NOT substantially change the page content, and use rel=canonical to tell Google that those are all really the same page. For instance, let's say one of the facets is packaging size, and product X comes in boxes of 1, 10, 100, or 500 units. Let's say another facet is color, and it comes in blue, green, or red. Let's say the URLs for these look like this:
www.mysite.com/product.php?pid=12345&color=blue&pkgsize=1
www.mysite.com/product.php?pid=12345&color=green&pkgsize=10
www.mysite.com/product.php?pid=12345&color=red&pkgsize=100
You would want to set the rel=canonical on all of these to:
www.mysite.com/product.php?pid=12345
Be sure that your XML sitemap, your on-page meta robots, and your rel=canonicals are all in agreement. In other words, if a page has meta robots "noindex,follow", it should NOT show up in your XML sitemap. If the pages above have their rel=canonicals set as described, then your sitemap should contain www.mysite.com/product.php?pid=12345 and NONE of the three example URLs with the color and pkgsize parameters above.
-
There are several concerns to be addressed with this scenario:
- Organization
This is going to be very difficult to keep track of. If you are well-organized or the pages will not need much adjusting, this is probably okay.
- Duplicate Content
This is going to be a pain the behind. That being said, most site auditing tools will allow you to make adjustments as necessary.
- Broken Links
With a site of this size, broken links and 404's are going to be inevitable. This could lead to some negative SEO impacts and will have to be kept on top of.
- Hacking
This is a big reason why some sites have enormous numbers of URLs. This would likely be the biggest concern on my mind and worth looking in to. Going through that many pages will be impossible, so it might be worth taking a look at the link profile and determining where most of your links are coming from. If these are coming from spammy sites, you may have a problem there.
All this being said, the size of a website is normally not a cause for concern. Just make sure that your main pages (Home, Landing Pages) are properly handled and optimized and you shouldn't have too much trouble. I would add that unwieldy htaccess files (large ones) can result in slower loading times, which can impact your rankings with Google.
Let me know if there is anything specific concerning you and I will be happy to help. Congrats on the upgrade and hope it works out!
Rob
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 are these blackhat sites so successful?
Here's an interesting conundrum. Here are three sites with their respective ranking for "dental implants [city]:" http://dentalimplantsvaughan.ca - 9 (on google.ca) http://dentalimplantsinhonoluluhi.com - 2 (on google.com) http://dentalimplantssurreybc.ca - 7 (on google.ca) These markets are not particularly competitive, however, all of these sites suffer from: Duplicate content, both internally and across sites (all of this company's implant sites have the same exact content, minus the bio pages and the local modifier). Average speed score. No structured data No links And these sites are ranking relatively quickly. The Vaughan site went live 3 months ago. But, what's boggling my mind is that they rank on the first page at all. It seems they're doing the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do, yet they rank relatively well.
Technical SEO | | nowmedia10 -
Is it problematic for Google when the site of a subdomain is on a different host than the site of the primary domain?
The Website on the subdomain runs on a different server (host) than the site on the main domain.
Technical SEO | | Christian_Campusjaeger0 -
Disavowing links, Is it effective?
Looking for your experiences with disavowing back-links? We've been flooded with new clients who need spammy link removal services and wanted to hear more about your experience with the disavow tool. For sites that have been penalized, how long did it take for them to come back using the disavow tool? Did you see sites come back after the next algo update? Here's the basics of our services for link deletion: 1. Find all the spammy links
Technical SEO | | Keith-Eneix
2. Contact webmasters to delete them
3. Disavow all spammy links that are part of an obvious network
4. Implement a content plan for new quality links to get the site healthy again.
5. Report on all links removed and new links attained Just want to make sure our processes are in line with what everyone else is doing?0 -
OSE says URL redirects to URL with trailing slash but it doesn't.
Site is www.example.com/folder/us and OSE says this URL redirects to www.example.com/folder/us/, but it does not. When I look at the OSE report for the latter version with the "/" it says "No Data Available For This URL". Why would that be? The original URL is www.example.com and it redirects to www.example.com/folder/us. Is this anything I need to worry about? I thought that the trailing / doesn't really mean much anymore but nonetheless, why does it think it redirects there?
Technical SEO | | rock220 -
Site Wide Links
I have a link on pr 3 home page website placed in the side bar. It is on a WordPress website that spans a couple hundred pages and the side bar is on every page. The majority of the pages are not ranked or have any pr. Can this affect me negatively?
Technical SEO | | raph39880 -
New Website, New URL, New Content - What do we do with the old site? Are 301's the only option?
We've just built a new site for a client. They were adamant on changing the url. The new site is entirely new content, however the subject mater is the same. Some pages are even titled very similarly. Is is advisable to keep the old site running, and link it to the new site? Permanently, or temporarily? Do we simply place redirects from the old site the new? Old site was 30 pages, new site is 80 pages. So redirects won't be available to all the new pages. It seems a shame to trash the old site, it is getting some good traffic, and the content - although outdated is unique and of a high quality. Old url is 4+ yrs old, the new url is new. Some enlightened opinions would be greatly welcomed. Thanks
Technical SEO | | MarketsOnline0 -
How to move a site slowly
I've got a site that I started back in 2001 (www.jaaroncaststone.com) to sell what I was making, concrete countertops and sinks. Well we're going to be discontinuing the concrete products in a month or so and want to start pointing all the links from the old site to a new one dedicated to a single product (www.jaaron-wood-countertops.com). I don't want to do a full 301 on the old site just yet but can I put a canonical tag on the index and about us pages pointing to the new site now so the search engines start looking that way or should I wait and do a full 301 when the day comes to pull the old site?
Technical SEO | | JAARON0 -
Is it a good idea to make 301 from a site which you know google has banned certain keywords for to a new site with similar content
Here is a short question re. 301. I read Dovers article on how to move an old domain to a new one. Say you have been a little inexperienced regarding linkbuilding and used some cheap service in the past and you have steadily seen that certain keywords have been depreciating in the SERP - however the PR is still 3 for the domain - now the qustion is should you rediect with a 301 in .htaccess to a new domain when you know that google does not like certain keywords with respect to the old site. Will the doom and gloom carry over to the new site?
Technical SEO | | Kofoed0