ECommerce site being "filtered" by last Panda update, ideas and discussion
-
Hello fellow internet go'ers!
Just as a disclaimer, I have been following a number of discussions, articles, posts, etc. trying to find a solution to this problem, but have yet to get anything conclusive. So I am reaching out to the community for help.
Before I get into the questions I would like to provide some background:
I help a team manage and improve a number of med-large eCommerce websites. Traffic ranges anywhere from 2K - 12K+ (per day) depending on the site. Back in March one of our larger sites was "filtered" from Google's search results. I say "filtered" because we didn't receive any warnings and our domain was/is still listed in the first search position. About 2-3 weeks later another site was "filtered", and then 1-2 weeks after that, a third site.
We have around ten niche sites (in total), about seven of them share an identical code base (about an 80% match). This isn't that uncommon, since we use a CMS platform to manage all of our sites that holds hundreds of thousands of category and product pages. Needless to say, April was definitely a frantic month for us. Many meetings later, we attributed the "filter" to duplicate content that stems from our product data base and written content (shared across all of our sites). We decided we would use rel="canonical" to address the problem. Exactly 30 days from being filtered our first site bounced back (like it was never "filtered"), however, the other two sites remain "under the thumb" of Google.
Now for some questions:
Why would only 3 of our sites be affected by this "filter"/Panda if many of them share the same content?
Is it a coincidence that it was an exact 30 day "filter"?
Why has only one site recovered?
-
Thanks for your responses.
@EGOL - I would agree that merging the sites would be ideal given that they share such a large database. Unfortunately, this isn't an option for our company (at this point-in-time). Acquiring new content for our product pages has been tossed around, but would be a HUGE undertaking, so its on the "back burner" for the moment.
@Ben Fox - We came to the conclusion that it was content because it was the only clear "offender" on the list of potential problems. However, the fact that only 3 of our sites got penalized perplexes me as well. It would have made more sense had all of our sites suffered a penalty (luckily only 3 did). One response I got from another forum was: since google removed enough duplicate content (3 sites in our case) it deemed that the others were "original".
We didn't point canonicals to any one site (like 9 going to 1). We only added the rel=canonical to our manufacturer category pages (a small percentage of pages). Since some of our domains sell products that aren't "niche specific" we told these pages to send preference to their proper niche domain (hope that made sense).
For discussion purposes, here is a response I got from another forum:
Why has only one site recovered?I suspect/assume the other sites will bounce back the same way after their own 30 day penalties expire.>Why would only 3 of our sites be affected by this "filter"/Panda if many of them share the same content????? maybe removing the first site allowed the scoring penalty applied to the other sites to shrink in size. as each site was removed, the penalty applied to the others correspondingly shrunk. ?????>Is it a coincidence that it was an exact 30 day "filter"?No. 30 day is a common penalty.Does anyone agree with these? I've heard of the 30 day penalty before. If this is the case, then a warning from Google would be nice.
-
Why would only 3 of our sites be affected by this "filter"/Panda if many of them share the same content?
Google can be slow to detect duplicate content and sometimes tolerates it.
Is it a coincidence that it was an exact 30 day "filter"?
Only google knows.
Why has only one site recovered?
Only google knows.
Google sees a lot of sites with same content and you say that these are "med-large" sites. If I was google I would say... "these are dupe content, we aren't going to index all of them, our searchers don't want to see ten sites with same stuff".
If these were my sites I would merge all of them into one single site. If the content on that site was unique to me I would probably then put all of my efforts into promotion and informative content for the product lines.
If the content was on other sites that I don't own then my efforts would go mainly into making unique product content and informative content for the product lines.
Google has been squashing duplicate content for years. If you have it and you place links between the sites it is very likely that at least one of your sites will be demoted in google or filtered - probably filtered. They don't want to spend their resources indexing ten duplicate sites. They would rather display unique sites to their searchers.
-
How did you decide that it was content causing the issue if only 3/10 of your sites were affected?
Also when you added the rel=canonical did 9 of your sites point to a primary site and was this the site that recovered?
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
-
Any recent updates from Google or community on sub domains vs sub directories?
Hi all, This has been a debate for years and I have noticed most of the SEOs suggest to go or switch to sub directories instead of sub domains. Still is this the same or any new updates from Google or SEO community? We have moved a sub domain to sub directory last year. The result was sub directory content started ranking good; but no change in website rankings. Because of moving sub domains to sub directories, will the linkjuice/PR of the website gets diluted as the number of pages increases which will takeaway soe authority? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Is it Okay to have "No Response" pages?
Hi all, I can see some "No Response" pages which gives a error message "Site cannot be reached" or keeps on loading but don't. I have got this list from Screaming from spider tool. Do we need to fix these or ignore? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Why is old site not being deindexed post-migration?
We recently migrated to a new domain (16 days ago), and the new domain is being indexed at a normal rate (2-3k pages per day). The issue is the old domain has not seen any drop in indexed pages. I was expecting a drop in # of indexed pages inversely related to the increase of indexed pages on the new site. Any advice?
Algorithm Updates | | ggpaul5620 -
Our company is mentioned on some high-traffic, authoritative sites and some of our products are linked as well. If we link to those pages, does it affect our SEO? How can we take advantage of those mentions?
I heard that if you link to another site, when Google indexes your site, they crawl that page that is referenced. By whatever metrics they use, if that site has your name or a link to your site, Google would rank it higher. I am not sure how true that is, but what value does another site mentioned our site have on our SEO?
Algorithm Updates | | JonathonOhayon1 -
Does anyone have an idea of the benefits of Google Analytics Premium?
We've been having a discussion about the GA Premium service here in our office, trying to weigh up the pro's and con's... For the majority all it seems you gain access to is more support from google. We're trying to find out if that is the case or if you gain extra information, such as and insight into the search terms who must not be named. Of course i'm talking about the (Not Set) data... This section of data is ever increasing, yes i know we can access certain terms through webmasters but it was so much easier (in the good ol' days) when all the data was under one roof! Any thought opinions or even more questions would be greatly appreciated, i look forward to your responses. Anthony
Algorithm Updates | | Kal-SEO0 -
Did The Last Google Algorithm Update, Hit sites with poor anchor text?
My content is quite strong within my niche, so I ranked well, but last month my rankings plummeted. On closer examination and scrutiny I discovered my anchor text needed updating. Has anyone else seen this happening in the last four weeks?
Algorithm Updates | | simonberenyi0 -
Google site links on sub pages
Hi all Had a look for info on this one but couldn't find much. I know these days that if you have a decent domain good will often automatically put site links on for your home if someone searches for your company name, however has anyone seen these links appear for sub pages? For example, lets say I had a .com domain with /en /fr /de sub folders, each seoed for their location. If I were to then have domain.com/en/ as no1 in Google for my company in the UK would I be able to get site links under this or does it only work on the 'proper' homepage domain.com/ A client of mine wants to reorganise their website so they have different location sections ranking in different markets but they also want to keep having sitewide links as they like the look of it Thanks Carl
Algorithm Updates | | Grumpy_Carl0 -
What determines rankings in a site: search?
When I perform a "site:" search on my domains (without specifying a keyword) the top ranked results seem to be a mixture of sensible top-level index pages plus some very random articles. Is there any significance to what Google ranks highly in a site: search? There is some really unrepresentative content returned on page 1, including articles that get virtually no traffic. Is this seriously what Google considers our best or most typical content?
Algorithm Updates | | Dennis-529610