Crawled page count in Search console
-
Hi Guys,
I'm working on a project (premium-hookahs.nl) where I stumble upon a situation I can’t address. Attached is a screenshot of the crawled pages in Search Console.
History:
Doing to technical difficulties this webshop didn’t always no index filterpages resulting in thousands of duplicated pages. In reality this webshops has less than 1000 individual pages. At this point we took the following steps to result this:
- Noindex filterpages.
- Exclude those filterspages in Search Console and robots.txt.
- Canonical the filterpages to the relevant categoriepages.
This however didn’t result in Google crawling less pages. Although the implementation wasn’t always sound (technical problems during updates) I’m sure this setup has been the same for the last two weeks. Personally I expected a drop of crawled pages but they are still sky high. Can’t imagine Google visits this site 40 times a day.
To complicate the situation:
We’re running an experiment to gain positions on around 250 long term searches. A few filters will be indexed (size, color, number of hoses and flavors) and three of them can be combined. This results in around 250 extra pages. Meta titles, descriptions, h1 and texts are unique as well.
Questions:
- - Excluding in robots.txt should result in Google not crawling those pages right?
- - Is this number of crawled pages normal for a website with around 1000 unique pages?
- - What am I missing?
-
Ben,
I doubt that crawlers are going to access the robots.txt file for each request, but they still have to validate any url they find against the list of the blocked ones.
Glad to help,
Don
-
Hi Don,
Thanks for the clear explanation. I always though disallow in robots.txt would give a sort of map to Google (at the start of a site crawl) with the pages on the site that shouldn’t be crawled. So he therefore didn’t have to “check the locked cars”.
If I understand you correctly, google checks the robots.txt with every single page load?
That could definitely explain high number of crawled pages per day.
Thanks a lot!
-
Hi Bob,
About the nofollow vs blocked. In the end I suppose you have the same results, but in practice it works a little differently. When you nofollow a link it tells the crawler as soon as it encounters the link not to request or follow that link path. When you block it via robots the crawler still attempts to access the url only to find it not accessible.
Imagine if I said go to the parking lot and collect all the loose change in all the unlocked cars. Now imagine how much easier that task would be if all the locked cars had a sign in the window that said "Locked", you could easily ignore the locked cars and go directly to the unlocked ones. Without the sign you would have to physically go check each car to see if it will open.
About link juice, if you have a link, juice will be passed regardless of the type of link. (You used to be able to use nofollow to preserve link juice but no longer). This is bit unfortunate for sites that use search filters because they are such a valuable tool for the users.
Don
-
Hi Don,
You're right about the sitemap, noted it on the to do list!
Your point about nofollow is intersting. Isn't excluding in robots.txt giving the same result?
Before we went on with the robots.txt we didn't implant nofollow because we didn't want any linkjuice to pass away. Since we got robots.txt I assume this doesn’t matter anymore since Google won’t crawl those pages anyway.
Best regards,
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
You can "suggest" a crawl rate to Google by logging into your webmasters tools on Google and adjusting it there.
As for indexing pages.. I looked at your robots and site. It really looks like you need to employ some No Follow on some of your internal linking, specifically on the product page filters, that alone could reduce the total number of URLS that the crawlers even attempts to look at.
Additionally your sitemap http://premium-hookahs.nl/sitemap.xml shows a change frequency of daily, and probably should be broken out between Pages / Images so you end up using two sitemaps one for images and one for pages. You may also want to review what is in there. Using ScreamingFrog (free) the sitemap I made (link) only shows about 100 urls.
Hope it helps,
Don
-
Hi Don,
Just wanted to add a quick note: your input made go through the indexation state of the website again which was worse than I through it was. I will take some steps to get this resolved, thanks!
Would love to hear your input about the number of crawled pages.
Best regards,
Bob
-
Hello Don,
Thanks for your advice. What would your advice be if the main goal would be the reduction of crawled pages per day? I think we got the right pages in the index and the old duplicates are mostly deindexed. At this point I’m mostly worried about Google spending it’s crawlbudget on the right pages. Somehow it still crawls 40.000 pages per day while we only got around 1000 pages that should be crawled. Looking at the current setup (with almost everything excluded though robots.txt) I can’t think of pages it does crawl to reach the 40k. And 40 times a day sounds like way to many crawled pages for a normal webshop.
Hope to hear from you!
-
Hello Bob,
Here is some food for thought. If you disallow a page in Robots.txt, google for example will not crawl that page. That does not however mean they will remove it from the index if it had previously been crawled. It simply treats it as inaccessible and moves on. It will take some time, months before Google finally says, we have no fresh crawls of page x, its time to remove it from the index.
On the other hand if you specifically allow Google to crawl those pages and show a no-index tag on it, Google now has a new directive it can act upon immediately.
So my evaluation of the situation would be to do 1 of 2 things.
1. Remove the disallow from robots and allow Google to crawl the pages again. However, this time use no-index, no-follow tags.
2. Remove the disallow from robots and allow Google to crawl the pages again, but use canonical tags to the main "filter" page to prevent further indexing the specific filter pages.
Which option is best depends on the amount of urls being indexed, a few thousand canonical would be my choice. A few hundred thousand, then no index would make more sense.
Whichever option, you will have to insure Google re-crawls, and then allow them time to re-index appropriately. Not a quick fix, but a fix none the less.
My thoughts and I hope it makes sense,
Don
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
-
When serving a 410 for page gone, should I serve an error page?
I'm removing a bunch of old & rubbish pages and was going to serve 410 to tell google they're gone (my understanding is it'll get them out of the index a bit quicker than a 404). I should still serve an error page though, right? Similar to a 404. That doesn't muddy the "gone" message that I'm giving Google? There's no need to 410 and die?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HSDOnline0 -
Google crawling 200 page site thousands of times/day. Why?
Hello all, I'm looking at something a bit wonky for one of the websites I manage. It's similar enough to other websites I manage (built on a template) that I'm surprised to see this issue occurring. The xml sitemap submitted shows Google there are 229 pages on the site. Starting in the beginning of December Google really ramped up their intensity in crawling the site. At its high point Google crawled 13,359 pages in a single day. I mentioned I manage other similar sites - this is a very unusual spike. There are no resources like infinite scroll that auto generates content and would cause Google some grief. So follow up questions to my "why?" is "how is this affecting my SEO efforts?" and "what do I do about it?". I've never encountered this before, but I think limiting my crawl budget would be treating the symptom instead of finding the cure. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks! *edited for grammar.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brettmandoes0 -
How to optimize count of interlinking by increasing Interlinking count of chosen landing pages and decreasing for less important pages within the site?
We have taken out our interlinking counts (Only Internal Links and not Outbound Links) through Google WebMaster tool and discovered that the count of interlinking of our most significant pages are less as compared to of less significant pages. Our objective is to reverse the existing behavior by increasing Interlinking count of important pages and reduce the count for less important pages so that maximum link juice could be transferred to right pages thereby increasing SEO traffic.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
Optimum Word Count for Home Page Text
We operate a commercial real estate web site (www.nyc-officespace-leader.com) in New York City. Our home page text is about 500 words. Currently the home page text is of a promotional nature and not very engaging. We are attempting to write a check list for companies that are seeking to lease commercial space and make the text very useful, practical and engaging. However we are having difficulty covering all the bases with less than 1,000 words. If the home page text has 1,000-1,300 words is that detrimental from an SEO point of view? On the plus side I would think this would allow us to include several secondary keyword terms and to add plurals and variations of the two or three top phrases. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks, Alan Rosinsky
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
How Do You Remove Video Thumbnails From Google Search Result Pages?
This is going to be a long question, but, in a nutshell, I am asking if anyone knows how to remove video thumbnails from Google's search result pages? We have had video thumbnails show up next to many of our organic listings in Google's search result pages for several months. To be clear, these are organic listings for our site, not results from performing a video search. When you click on the thumbnail or our listing title, you go to the same page on our site - a list of products or the product page. Although it was initially believed that these thumbnails drew the eye to our listings and that we would receive more traffic, we are actually seeing severe year over year declines in traffic to our category pages with thumbnails vs. category pages without thumbnails (where average rank remained relatively constant). We believe this decline is due to several things: An old date stamp that makes our listing look outdated (despite the fact that we can prove Google has spidered and updated their cache of these pages as recent as 2 days ago). We have no idea where Google is getting this datestamp from. An unrelated thumbnail to the page title, etc. - sometimes a picture of a man's face when the category is for women's handbags A difference in intent - user intends to shop or browse, not watch a video. They skip our listing because it looks like a video even though both the thumbnail and our listing click through to a category page of products. So we want to remove these video thumbnails from Google's search results without removing our pages from the index. Does anyone know how to do this? We believed that this connection between category page and video was happening in our video sitemap. We have removed all reference to video and category pages in the sitemap. After making this change and resubmitting the sitemap in Webmaster Tools, we have not seen any changes in the search results (it's been over 2 weeks). I've been reading and it appears many believe that Google can identify video embedded in pages. That makes sense. We can certainly remove videos from our category pages to truly remove the connection between category page URL and video thumbnail. However, I don't believe this is enough because in some cases you can find video thumbnails next to listings where the page has not had a video thumbnail in months (example: search for "leather handbags" and find www.ebags.com/category/handbags/m/leather - that video does not exist on that page and has not for months. Similarly, do a search for "handbags" and find www.ebags.com/department/handbags. That video has not been on that page since 2010. Any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SharieBags0 -
Duplicate site (disaster recovery) being crawled and creating two indexed search results
I have a primary domain, toptable.co.uk, and a disaster recovery site for this primary domain named uk-www.gtm.opentable.com. In the event of a disaster, toptable.co.uk would get CNAMEd (DNS alias) to the .gtm site. Naturally the .gtm disaster recover domian is an exact match to the toptable.co.uk domain. Unfortunately, Google has crawled the uk-www.gtm.opentable site, and it's showing up in search results. In most cases the gtm urls don't get redirected to toptable they actually appear as an entirely separate domain to the user. The strong feeling is that this duplicate content is hurting toptable.co.uk, especially as .gtm.ot is part of the .opentable.com domain which has significant authority. So we need a way of stopping Google from crawling gtm. There seem to be two potential fixes. Which is best for this case? use the robots.txt to block Google from crawling the .gtm site 2) canonicalize the the gtm urls to toptable.co.uk In general Google seems to recommend a canonical change but in this special case it seems robot.txt change could be best. Thanks in advance to the SEOmoz community!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | OpenTable0 -
Previously ranking #1 in google, web page has 301 / url rewrite, indexed but now showing for keyword search?
Two web pages on my website, previously ranked well in google, consistent top 3 places for 6months+, but when the site was modified, these two pages previously ending .php had the page names changed to the keyword to further improve (or so I thought). Since then the page doesn't rank at all for that search term in google. I used google webmaster tools to remove the previous page from Cache and search results, re submitted a sitemap, and where possible fixed links to the new page from other sites. On previous advice to fix I purchased links, web directories, social and articles etc to the new page but so far nothing... Its been almost 5 months and its very frustrating as these two pages previously ranked well and as a landing page ended in conversions. This problem is only appearing in google. The pages still rank well in Bing and Yahoo. Google has got the page indexed if I do a search by the url, but the page never shows under any search term it should, despite being heavily optimised for certain terms. I've spoke to my developers and they are stumped also, they've now added this text to the effected page(s) to see if this helps. Header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seanclc
$newurl=SITE_URL.$seo;
Header("Location:$newurl"); Can Google still index a web page but refuse to show it in search results? All other pages on my site rank well, just these two that were once called something different has caused issues? Any advice? Any ideas, Have I missed something? Im at a loss...0 -
Help! Optimizing dynamic internal search results pages...
Hi guys, Now I have always been against this, and opted to noindex internal search results pages to stop the waste of link juice, dupe content, and crawl loops... however, I'm in a discussion with somebody who feels there may be a solution, and that the pages could actually be optimized to rank (for different keywords to the landing pages of course). Anybody come across such a thing before? My only solution would be still to noindex and then build static pages with the most popular search results in but that won't suffice in this case. Any recommendations would be much appreciated 🙂 Thanks, Steve 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SteveOllington0