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
-
My site just dropped significant!
Just noticed that my website onlinecasting.co.za just dropped 50+ places on basically all the keywords I'm following.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | KasperGJ
I can also see, that today there almost havent been any new sign-ups so something happened.
I didnt change anything. On issue, which might have something to do with it, is that I own several "copies" of the same site, just in different countries (domains). I host the websites myself, and they are all on the same server. The text and design in the same in some of the countries except that "jobs" are unique for the country. I also have:
onlinecasting.ae (english)
onlinecasting.sg (english)
onlinecasting.mx
and more coming So, could that be the reason, that google somehow now decided, that it wont accept the "allmost same site"?0 -
2015 Bing Disavow, should i copy and paste from Google?
So I just submitted my 2nd disavow file to Google, but what about Bing? I know i would have to submit one url at a time, but is it worth it? Is it safe yet to submit the same file from Google? I know Bing measures quantity of links and submitting the same file might hurt my rankings, but anything new in 2015?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Why isn't a 301 redirect removing old style URLs from Google's index?
I have two questions:1 - We changed the URL structure of our site. Old URLs were in the format of kiwiforsale.com/used_fruit/yummy_kiwi. These URLs are 301 redirected to kiwiforsale.com/used-fruit/yummy-kiwi. We are getting duplicate content errors in Google Webmaster Tools. Why isn't the 301 redirect removing the old style URL out of Google's index?2 - I tried to remove the old style URL at https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals, however I got the message that "We think the image or web page you're trying to remove hasn't been removed by the site owner. Before Google can remove it from our search results, the site owner needs to take down or update the content."Why are we getting this message? Doesn't the 301 redirect alert Google that the old style URL is toast and it's gone?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Direct Traffic has Dropped 48% to Last Year
Since February of 2013 our organic traffic at http://www.weddingshoppeinc.com had been declining. We were able to get traffic back up to par with numbers from the previous year by December of 2013. In March of 2014 our direct traffic took a major hit and hasn’t improved. We know our mobile traffic is part of the problem, but the issue has affected traffic from desktop and mobile devices. Is this an organic traffic problem, or is our decrease in direct traffic coming from somewhere else? Has anyone else seen this issue, or does anyone have advice? Here is what we’ve already looked into and updates to note: Before this issue, when we compared organic and direct traffic, direct was usually half of what organic was (i.e., if organic was at 10 visitors, direct was at 5). However organic traffic has followed normal trends and direct has dropped. In August we updated our .net code to MVC to drop our first byte from 1,700 to 300 milliseconds. However, if you look at our m. site, it’s around 1,000 milliseconds. We changed our SEO strategy in May to follow best practices. We’ve been rewriting old content. We haven’t ever done any black hat SEO, just have some old blogs from 2010-2012 that have too many keywords. These are getting edited. In March we moved our images to a CDN for our images. We’re currently working on server errors and broken links, but nothing significant changed around March to affect our traffic. Very recently, our web developers said that they believed our direct traffic had been getting tracked wrong in Google Analytics prior to March 2014. However they think they fixed the issue in a March push. We've taken this theory into account, but we also see a drop in revenue at the time of their push that correlates with the drop in traffic, so we know there’s a bigger issue. Any input you can provide would be greatly appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JimmyFritz1 -
Google's Related Searches - Optimizing Possible?
Does anyone know how Google determines what suggestions show up at the bottom of SERPs? I've been working with a client to boost his local ranking, but every time we do a branded search for his business his competitors keep popping up in the "Searches related to ______" section.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mtwelves0 -
The wrath of Google's Hummingbird, a big problem, but no quick solution?
One of our websites has been wrongfully tagged for penalty and has literally disappeared from Google. After lot's of research, it seems the reason was due to a ton of spammy backlinks and irrelevant anchor text. I have disavowed the links, but the results are still not rebounding back. Any idea how long the wrath of Google gods will last?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Mouneeb0 -
Can someone hep me on writing a letter to google reconsideration
Can someone hep me and charge for it on writing a letter to google reconsideration in native english? I did everything on this last year to respect google guidelines, and i as site owner always did on generating good content and usability to my site althoung a seo company had generate unnutural links that i manage to remove almost of them. i did all and more contacting webmasters to solve it. But i am not a english native speaker, i am just a content generator with a webmaster account. I is my last try to save my domain. Can someone help me on write a good google last letter? thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Is it possible that since the Google Farmer's Update, that people practicing Google Bowling can negatively affect your site?
We have hundreds of random bad links that have been added to our sites across the board that nobody in our company paid for. Two of our domains have been penalized and three of our sites have pages that have been penalized. Our sites are established with quality content. One was built in 2007, the other in 2008. We pay writers to contribute quality and unique content. We just can't figure out a) Why the sites were pulled out of Google indexing suddenly after operating well for years b) Where the spike in links came from. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dahnyogaworks0