I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
-
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem."
Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority."
So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too
Dana
-
Agreed on all counts Jason, not to mention the improved customer experience because we won't have people landing on those God-awful ugly and useless pages!
From a server perspective, could deleting 8,000 files (pages, images, PDFs) results in our site speed improving too? Or would it likely have no impact?
-
So you have roughly 8,500 pages that are part of your customer experience and that you want customers to be able to navigate to from your site and presumably would like customers to find on Google. (from Screaming Frog).
But only 7,500 only pages are in Google's index. So best case, roughly 1,000 of your good pages (almost 12% of all the pages on your site) don't exist in organic search. Worst case, is that some of those 7,500 pages in google are depreciated pages that aren't part of your active site, making the percentage of live pages in google even worse.
It's very possible that a portion of your google crawl budget is being consumed by pages that don't help you. If you get those pages out of the index, you stand a better chance to get your 1000 good pages into the index.
-
Hi Jason,
Ok, here is what I saw in Screaming Frog:
27,616 total spidered URLs, of which:
- 8,494 are HTML pages
- 45 are CSS files
- 14,687 are images
- 4,287 are PDFs
Google says we have only 7,540 URLs indexed (of all types) - I know for a fact that at least 500 orphaned pages are indexed in Google. It seems to me, then, that Google is indexing content that isn't important to us, and perhaps not indexing other content that is important to us because it's having trouble telling what's important and what's not.
Any insights on that Jason? What do you make of it?
-
Hi Jason,
I'm just following up as I get my ducks in a row on this one. Above in your comment you said "Google Count of Pages - Screaming Frog count of Pages = # of Orphaned Pages" - to be perfectly accurate, this would only give me the number of orphaned pages that are indexed. There could be many additional orphaned pages that are not in Google's index.
My follow up question is, should I be concerned about those too? Or are orphaned pages that aren't indexed not worth cleaning up? I think I already know the answer (Yes! Clean those up too because they can interfere with crawl rate and site speed...)....but I want to know your take on it please. Thanks so much!
Dana
-
Tempting! Very tempting.:-)
-
I would not do this if I was an employee... but.... I would ask him to bet me an amount that would be equivalent to about "one month's pay" on the results.
He is a chicken so he wouldn't accept that bet. And if he did accept I would want it in writing.
-
Thanks EGOL. You made me chuckle, because all of these things crossed my mind. I did go home mad yesterday, and I don't get mad very easily or very often. I usually welcome the idea of explaining SEO strategies and tactics to newbies and laypeople (as is evidenced by my many posts here in Q & A).
Let's just say - my feelers are out looking at other possibilities.
-
In my opinion, the links are still evaporating pagerank.
If some of these pages are still in the index they could be counting as thin/duplicate content.
-
What would your response be to that?
- thinks for a while *
I would be mad about this. This is why I prefer to be self-employed.
I don't know the temperament or personality of this person.
I might not be working there much longer.
It seems to me that the effort required to cut links into these pages is tiny and the potential for gain is pretty high.
Downside risk is zero. Upside opportunity is good. He is a chicken and a fool.
-
EGOL, I thought I would just follow up on these thin content "Reviews/Ratings" pages. They are blocked from Google crawling them via the robots.txt file. Is this enough? Or are they still diluting the product page's authority just by being there?
Thanks!
Dana
-
Thanks EGOL,
And yes, they are.
The comment I received when trying to explain that those links were draining authority off the product pages was "No they aren't. Whatever PageRank the product page has, it has, regardless of whether the links are there or not."
What would your response be to that? I tried to explain it several different ways, but he just looked at me like I was full of malarkey...He is a visual person. Perhaps I should try a diagram?
It's difficult going into a situation like this when the opening premise in the other person's mind is that he knows more about SEO than I do, because all SEO is in his mind is a bunch of guesswork.
Sorry, moral's a bit low in my heart at the moment. I work too hard and study too hard at what I do to have someone who maybe read's a blog about SEO occasionally to come in and treat me like I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Thanks very much for responding. I appreciate it mucho!
Dana
-
Thanks Jason,
These are great suggestions and are exactly the kinds of things that will give me the proof I need to convince him that removing these is a worthwhile endeavor. I'm off to do them now and will come back here and post my discoveries.
Dana
-
Are these those thin content, duplicate content, review and email pages?
There are links into those pages that are evaporating pagerank.
Two links on each of your product pages are being wasted.
If they are getting indexed then they are dead weight on your site and make your site look like a skimpy spammy publisher.
-
By "orphaned" do you mean pages that are no longer linked to your site navigation taxonomy?
If you know the subject matter and/or URLs, you can easy show your boss that they are indexed: Google "site:oursite.com orphaned topic" and show him all the pages in the google index.
If you can't find the pages, then do a complete crawl of your site with Screaming Frog and see how many pages it finds. Now compare that number with how many pages Google has in your index in Google Webmaster Tools (under Health -> Index Status). Google Count of Pages - Screaming Frog count of Pages = # of Orphaned Pages.
Now to see if those pages are hurting you, run them through Open Site Explorer to see if any of them have backlinks. If so, they are diluting your SEO efforts. Even if not, look at your crawl stats in Google Webmaster tools under Health and see how many pages you're getting crawled per day. If it's a fraction of your total pages, then if you got rid of the orphaned pages, you could be getting your important pages crawled more regularly.
I hope that helps.
Jason "Retailgeek" Goldberg
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
-
Hi! I'm wondering whether for keyword SEO - a url should be www.salshoes.com/shoes/mens/day-wear (so with a few parent categories) or www.salshoes.com/shoes-mens-day-wear is ok for on page optimization?
Hi! I'm wondering whether for keyword SEO - a url should be www.salshoes.com/shoes/mens/day-wear (so with a few parent categories) or www.salshoes.com/shoes-mens-day-wear is ok for on page optimization? Hi! I'm wondering whether for keyword SEO - a url should be www.salshoes.com/shoes/mens/day-wear (so with a few parent categories) or www.salshoes.com/shoes-mens-day-wear is ok for on page optimization?
Technical SEO | | SalSantaCruz0 -
Site splitting value of our pages with multiple variations. How can I fix this with the least impact?
Just started at a company recently, and there is a preexisting problem that I could use some help with. Somebody please tell me there is a low impact fix for this: My company's website is structured so all of the main links used on the nav are listed as .asp pages. All the canonical stuff. However, for "SEO Purposes," we have a number of similar (not exact) pages in .html on the same topic on our site. So, for example, let's say we're a bakery. The main URL, as linked in the nav, for our Chocolate Cakes, would be http://www.oursite.com/chocolate-cakes.asp. This differentiates the page from our other cake varieties, such as http://www.oursite.com/pound-cakes.asp and http://www.oursite.com/carrot-cakes.asp. Alas, fully indexed in Google with links existing only in our sitemap, we also have: http://www.oursite.com/chocolate-cakes.html http://www.oursite.com/chocolatecakes.html http://www.oursite.com/cakes-chocolate.html This seems CRAZY to me, because wouldn't this split our search results 4 ways? Am I right in assuming this is destroying the rankings of our canonical pages? I want to change this, but problem is, none of the content is the same on any of the variants, and some of these pages rank really well - albeit mostly for long tail keywords instead of the good, solid keywords we're after. So, what I'm asking you guys is: How do I burn these .html pages to the ground without completely destroying our rankings for the other keywords? I want to 301 those pages to our canonical nav URLs but, because of the wildly different content, I'm afraid that we could see a heavy drop in search traffic. Am I just being overly cautious? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | jdsnyc20 -
Joomla creating duplicate pages, then the duplicate page's canonical points to itself - help!
Using Joomla, every time I create an article a subsequent duplicate page is create, such as: /latest-news/218-image-stabilization-task-used-to-develop-robot-brain-interface and /component/content/article?id=218:image-stabilization-task-used-to-develop-robot-brain-interface The latter being the duplicate. This wouldn't be too much of a problem, but the canonical tag on the duplicate is pointing to itself.. creating mayhem in Moz and Webmaster tools. We have hundreds of duplicates across our website and I'm very concerned with the impact this is having on our SEO! I've tried plugins such as sh404SEF and Styleware extensions, however to no avail. Can anyone help or know of any plugins to fix the canonicals?
Technical SEO | | JamesPearce0 -
Duplicate Content issue in Magento: The product pages are available true 3 URL's! How can we solve this?
Right now the product page "gedroogde goji bessen" (Dutch for: dried goji berries) is available true 3 URL's! **http://www.sportvoeding.net/gedroogde-goji-bessen ** =>
Technical SEO | | Zanox
By clicking on the product slider on the homepage
http://www.sportvoeding.net/superfood/gedroogde-goji-bessen =>
First go to sportvoeding.net/superfood (main categorie) and than clicking on "gedroogde Goji bessen"
http://www.sportvoeding.net/superfood/goji-bessen/gedroogde-goji-bessen =>
When directly go to the subcategorie "Goji Bessen" true the menu and there clicking on "gedroogde Goji Bessen" We want to have the following product URL:
http://www.sportvoeding.net/superfood/goji-bessen/gedroogde-goji-bessen Does someone know´s a good Exetension for this issue?0 -
Are links in menus to external sites bad for SEO?
We're building a blog on a subdomain of the main site. The main site is on Shopify and the blog will be on wordpress. I'd like to keep the user experience as simple as possible so I'd like to make the blog look exactly like the main Shopify site. This means having a menu in the blog that duplicates the Shopify menu. So is it bad for SEO to have someone click on the 'about us' button in the blog subdomain (blog.mainsite.com) which takes you to the 'about us page' on the main shopify website (mainsite.com)?
Technical SEO | | acs1110 -
How To SEO Mobile Pages?
hello, I have finally put my first foot on the path of trying to learn and understand mobile SEO. I have a few questions regarding mobile SEO and how it works, so please help me out. I use wordpress for my site, and there is a nifty plugin called WP touch http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wptouch/ What it basically does is, it converts your desktop version into a mobile friendly version. I wanted to know that if it does that, does this mean whatever SEO i do for my regular web site gets accomplished for my moible version as well? Another simple question is, if i search for the same term on my mobile phone then on my desktop how different will the SERs be? thanks moz peeps
Technical SEO | | david3050 -
Same page from different locations has slight different URL, is it a negative SEO practice?
Hi, Recently we made change in our website link generation logic, and now I can reach the same page from different pages with slightly different URLs like this: http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=wlZJNya&by=Featured_ShowMe and http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=wlZJNya&by=Topic Just wondering is this a bad practice and should we avoid it? Thank you, Karen
Technical SEO | | showme0 -
Redesign an SEO-Disaster | Help with Redirects of Gray Hat Pages
Hi gang. I'm a new SEO and I'm currently working on the redesign of a website. I have just discovered a ton of hidden pages that are filled with duplicate content, basically reiterating the main keyword in a variety of different variations. Each page is titled with the variation on the keyword phrase and then has one paragraph of text very similar to the previous page, etc. Here is an example of one of the offensive pages (nice lookin' site, eh?): http://www.vasectomy-reversals.com/vasectomy_reversal_surgery.html The new site will not have any of these pages. I'm writing the 301 redirects now and want to redirect these offensive pages to the most relevant page on the new site. But, I'm afraid to redirect the offensive pages. Should I leave them alone, or can I have the former developer remove them? Help. Don't know how to handle these pages and their redirects. Thanks for your help! ~ Mills
Technical SEO | | Mills0