Anyone managed to decrease the "not selected" graph in WMT?
-
Hi Mozzers.
I am working with a very large E-com site that has a big issue with duplicate or near duplicate content. The site actually received a message in WMT listing out pages that Google deemed it should not be crawling. Many of these were the usual pagination / category sorting option URL issues etc.
We have since fixed the issue with a combination of site changes, robots.txt, parameter handling and URL removals, however I was expecting the "not selected" graph in WMT to start dropping.
The number of roboted pages has increased by around 1 million pages (which was expected) and indexed pages has actually increased despite removing hundreds of thousands of pages. I assume this is due to releasing some crawl bandwidth for more important pages like products.
I guess my question is two-fold;
1. Is the "not selected" graph cumulative, as this would explain why it isn't dropping?
2. Has anyone managed to get this figure to significantly drop? Should I even care? I am relating this to Panda by the way.
Important to note that the changes were made around 3 weeks ago and I am aware not everything will be re-crawled yet.
Thanks,
Chris -
Very interesting. I'm also convinced the "not selected" graph is a big clue towards a Panda penalty. I guess I will have to wait another couple of weeks to see if our changes have affected the graph. Maybe this time lag is why it can take upwards of 6 months to get recover from Panda!
-
Hi Chris
Here is the nice information about the "Not Selected" data in WMT. I hope this post will help you more to understand about the Not Selected Graph : http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2642366
-
The "Not Selected" isn't cumulative. The "Ever Crawled" is though.
I have a large Wordpress content site. It was hit by Panda on a very same day that my "not selected" multiplied by 8. I don't think it was a coincidence, and I didn't make any large changes to the site besides the regular addition of about 10 posts per week.
I've been able to effect a downward movement on the not selected count by removing/redirecting things like "replytocom" variable URLs in the comments section;reworking print and email versions of each article, etc. It very slow though, only reducing by an average of 100 per week.
Needless to say, I think the not selected metric means quite alot.
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
-
Can anyone recommend an SEO workflow?
I've been seeing great results with my efforts in the last few months. But I think my workflow is a mess is non-existent! Does anyone have a specific workflow that I could use as a base?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Madstrategist1 -
B2B site targeting 20,000 companies with 20,000 dedicated "target company pages" on own website.
An energy company I'm working with has decided to target 20,000 odd companies on their own b2b website, by producing a new dedicated page per target company on their website - each page including unique copy and a sales proposition (20,000 odd new pages to optimize! Yikes!). I've never come across such an approach before... what might be the SEO pitfalls (other than that's a helluva number of pages to optimize!). Any thoughts would be very welcome.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
For SEO... - Display Graphs in HTML5 or Image?
Hi All, Would you recommend displaying charts and graphs as images or HTML5 (highcharts etc.)? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0 -
Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Fluctuating Rankings on "difficult" keywords
Hi guys, I have a client who wants to rank well for two very "difficult" keywords and eight easier ones. The easy ones are "treadmills + city" and the difficult ones are "treadmills" and "treadmill". We have got great traction on the "+city" keywords and he now ranks on page one for all those. However, we have noticed that although he ranks on page 2-3 for "treadmill" treadmills", those rankings fluctuate widely day to day. Rankings for the "+city" versions are stable, a rising slowly as I would expect. Rankings for the difficult keywords can be 235 one day, 32 the next week, 218 the day after that, then stable at 30ish for a week, then fluctuation again. I know Google update every day, but what are the likely causes of the easier keywords being stable, while the harder ones fluctuate? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevedeane0 -
Could targeting 2 geographic locations decrease rankings?
Hello, I think that us targeting 2 different geographic locations (San Francisco, CA and Salt Lake City, UT) is negatively effecting the rank of some of our main keywords. My evidence for this: Since December our main keyword (NLP) dropped in ranking for nlpca(dot)com from about 19th to about 40th. This is about when we started to really target 2 different locations. Other main keywords dropped a lot as well, like the important term "NLP Training" Also, our name, nlpca(dot)com indicates NLP California (CA stands for California in Google) The other day we bolded a sentence with the words "Salt Lake City, Utah" at the top of our content and in one of Google's Databases (the one I was looking at) we dropped in rankings for "NLP California" where we used to be completely sitelinked (where we took up a lot of space at the top of the search). Also, we shot up to 1st on my datacenter for both "NLP Utah" and "NLP Salt Lake City". At the same time, our rankings for the term "NLP" dropped off the map. It has come back up, but we've also targeted California again. A lot of our anchor text has the word "California" in it. We're thinking about building a separate site for Utah and just linking to it from the California website when we need to. Does it sound to you, in your experience, that targeting both locations in our case is what's causing a decrease in rankings? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Canonical URL's - Do they need to be on the "pointed at" page?
My understanding is that they are only required on the "pointing pages" however I've recently heard otherwise.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DPSSeomonkey0 -
How to handle "2" homepages?
Came across an interesting problem. A site has the traditional homepage of site.com and ranks okay. Later I found that another "homepage", site.com/home.html that ranks well for several terms but actually has old branding and semi-up-to-date content. Site.com/home.html has a solid linking profile but not as strong as the current homepage (site.com). The question I have is should I try to salvage the page or 301 redirect to site.com? Thank for the help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 2comarketing0