One of the main problem is that there are a lot of such pages (aprox. 2-3 milions) and my indexation rate is really slow for a site this big. The old sitemap structure was to complex, and I wanted so simplify it, so Google wiil crawl only the important pages

I have a lot of pages that I don't want Google to index, so for most of them, I used cannonical, were they were duplicates, noindex were I wanted to remove the pages, but the question is: Should I include these pages in the sitemap.xml, or just the important pages?

Also should I include them in order to get the changes indexed fastet by Google?

Hi all,

I got a big problem with my website. I have a lot of page, duplicate page made from various combinations of selects, and for all this duplicate content we've be hit by a panda update 2 years ago.

I don't want to bring new content an all of these pages, about 3.000.000, because most of them are unnecessary. Google indexed all of them (3.000.000), and I want to redirect the pages that I don't need anymore to the most important ones.

My question, is there any problem in how google will see this change, because after this it will remain only 5000-6000 relevant pages?

I forgot to mention a thing. Beside the logo, I have a home button and also you can get to the home trought the breadcrumbs links.

The nofollow was put there by a previous SEO, to limit the bot to get to homepage.

Hi

I'm working on this site: www.nobelcom.com and on the logo I have a rel=nofollow. Do you think I should keep it, and is so way, or I should remove the nofollow (why?)

Thanks Ari!

Thank you for the tip Ari, but our website is not using apache and htaccess, so the rules are written in another language, but I'm sure this is not important.

The http status of the old urls is 301 to the new relative paths /new-url.html
and this is where my problem is:
Should the destination url (the new one) be relative or absolute?

Silviu

Hello everyone,

Recently we've changed the URL structure on our website, and of course we had to 301 redirect the old urls to the coresponding new ones.

The way the technical guys did this is:

"http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "/new-url.html"
meaning as a relative redirect path, not an absolute one like this:
"http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "http://www.domain.com/new-url.html"

This happened for few thousands urls, and the fact is the organic traffic dropped for those pages after this change. (no other changes were made on these pages and the new urls are as seo friendly as possible, A grade on On-Page Grader).

The question is: does the relative redirect negatively affects seo, or it counts the same as an absolute path redirect?

Thanks,
S.