Thank you, David.
![TalkInThePark TalkInThePark](https://moz.com/avatar/large/0/t.png)
Posts made by TalkInThePark
-
A/B Tests: How To Verify Difference In Average Order Value?
Hi there! When the data from an A/B test shows a difference in AOV between the variants, how do you determine if this difference is statistically probable or not? Best Regards, Martin
-
RE: Google Algorithm change? - Brand name now overwriting title tag?
I am seeing this too, Google flips the order of our brand name and our USP in our homepage title.
"USP - Brand Name"
now becomes
"Brand Name: USP"
-
RE: Googlebot does not obey robots.txt disallow
We do not currently have any sanitation rules in order to maintain the nocrawl param. But that is a good point. 301:ing will be difficult for us but I will definitely add the nocrawl param to the rel canonical of those internal SERPs.
-
RE: Googlebot does not obey robots.txt disallow
Thank you, Igol. I will definitely look into your first suggestion.
-
RE: Googlebot does not obey robots.txt disallow
Thank you, Cyrus.
This is what it looks like:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /nocrawl=1The weird thing is that when testing one of the sample URLs (given by Google as "problematic" in the GWMT message and that contains the nocrawl param) on the GWMT "Blocked URLs" page by entering the contents of our robots.txt and the sample URL, Google says crawling of the URL is disallowed for Googlebot.
On the top of the same page, it says "Never" under the heading "Fetched when" (translated from Swedish..). But when i "Fetch as Google" our robots.txt, Googlebot has no problems fetching it. So i guess the "Never" information is due to a GWMT bug?
I also tested our robots.txt against your recommended service http://www.frobee.com/robots-txt-check. It says all robots has access to the sample URL above, but I gather the tool is not wildcard-savvy.
I will not disclose our domain in this context, please tell me if it is ok to send you a PW.
About the noindex stuff. Basically, the nocrawl param is added to internal links pointing to internal search result pages filtered by more than two params. Although we allow crawling of less complicated internal serps, we disallow indexing of most of them by "meta noindex".
-
RE: Googlebot does not obey robots.txt disallow
Igal, thank your for replying.
But robots.txt disallowing URLs by matching patterns has been supported by Googlebot for a long time now.
-
Googlebot does not obey robots.txt disallow
Hi Mozzers!
We are trying to get Googlebot to steer away from our internal search results pages by adding a parameter "nocrawl=1" to facet/filter links and then robots.txt disallow all URLs containing that parameter.
We implemented this late august and since that, the GWMT message "Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site", stopped coming.
But today we received yet another. The weird thing is that Google gives many of our nowadays robots.txt disallowed URLs as examples of URLs that may cause us problems.
What could be the reason?
Best regards,
Martin
-
RE: Erroneous "Weekly Keyword Ranking & On-page Optimization Report" For Campaign
It looks good now.
Thanks!
-
Erroneous "Weekly Keyword Ranking & On-page Optimization Report" For Campaign
Hi,
I just received an email alert from Seomoz telling me my "Weekly Keyword Ranking & On-page Optimization Report " for the period 11/06/12 - 11/13/12 is ready.
It is just a copy of the previous report though, all rankings and ranking changes are the same.
What is up with that?
Best regards,
Martin
-
RE: Why are not nofollowed links counted in On-Page Analysis Report?
Thank you, Chiaryn. What I think is relevant when it comes to links on a page is 1. Total links? If the number is high, I would look into if all those links really are necessary. Can we cut down on links that does not point to landing pages in order to give landing pages as much link juice as possible and at the same time increase the chances that those pages get crawled? We have these kind of problems on our e-commerce homepage at the moment - important product pages do not get crawled and/or get too little link juice due to way too many links. 2. Total followed links? Are there links that should be nofollowed in order to establish optimal crawl path? 3. Total external links Too few or are we unnecessarily throwing away link juice off the site? 4. Total followed external links A healthy number or does it look spammy? Best regards Martin •
-
Why are not nofollowed links counted in On-Page Analysis Report?
When I run the On-Page Analysis on our homepage, the report says the page has 238 **"Internal followed links". **
Why are not nofollowed internal links counted as well? Nofollowed links have been leaking link juice for quite some time now.
Martin
-
RE: The "100 links/page recommendation" - Do Duplicate Links Count?
We do use nofollows on some internal links. Not for PR sculpting reasons, but for bot crawling reasons. There is no point in telling Gbot to crawl our buy button links.
-
RE: The "100 links/page recommendation" - Do Duplicate Links Count?
Thanks for pointing me to the video, Elias.
If I understand Matt correctly, when having several links on a single page that point to the same destination URL, links 2-n will dilute PR.
-
RE: The "100 links/page recommendation" - Do Duplicate Links Count?
Yes. But do the other two links to our contact page dilute the link juice that gets passed on to other links on the page?
Would you not think those two duplicate links would be counted as "nofollow" links by Google and thereby dilute link juice?
-
The "100 links/page recommendation" - Do Duplicate Links Count?
We have way too many links on our homepage. The PageRank Link Juice Calculator (www.ecreativeim.com/pagerank-link-juice-calculator.php) counts them to 300.
But all of them are not unique, that is some links point to the same URL.
So my question: does the "100 links/page recommendation" refer to all anchors on the page or only to unique link target URLs?
I know "100" is just a standard recommendation.
-
RE: De-indexing millions of pages - would this work?
Thanks a lot, Tom. Time will tell...
Just one last thing:
what damage are you (and Google) thinking of when advising against removing URLs on a large scale through GWMT?Personally, I think Google says so only because they want to keep as much information possible in their index.
-
RE: De-indexing millions of pages - would this work?
Yes, I have put a conditional meta robots "noindex" on all pages whose URL contains more than 2 GET elements. It is also present on URLs containing parameters of little or no SEO value (e.g. the "price" parameter).
Regarding the nofollow directive, my plan is to not put it in the head but on the individual links pointing to URLs that should not be indexed. If we happen to get a backlink to one of these noindexed pages, I want the link value to get passed on to listed product pages.
My big worrie is what should I do if this de-indexation process takes forever...
-
RE: De-indexing millions of pages - would this work?
Thanks for answering that quickly, Tom!
We cannot robots.txt disallow all URLs. We get quite a lot of organic traffic to these URLs. In july, organic traffic landing on results pages gave us approximately $85 000 in revenue. Also, what is good to know is that pages resulting from searching and browsing share the same URL - the search phrase is treated as just another filtering parameter in the URL.
Keeping the same URL structure is part of my preferred, 2-step solution:
- Meta Robots "noindex" unwanted results pages (the overwhelming majority)
- When our Google index has shrunken enough, put rel=nofollow on internal links pointing to those results pages in order to prevent bots from crawling them.
I have actually implemented step 1 (as of yesterday). The solution I was describing in my original post is my last resort solution. I wanted to get a professional opinion on that one in order to know if I should rule it out or not.
Unfortunately, I cannot disclose our company name here (I have a feeling our competitors use Seomoz as well :)). But I'll send you some links in a private message.
-
De-indexing millions of pages - would this work?
Hi all,
We run an e-commerce site with a catalogue of around 5 million products.
Unfortunately, we have let Googlebot crawl and index tens of millions of search URLs, the majority of which are very thin of content or duplicates of other URLs. In short: we are in deep. Our bloated Google-index is hampering our real content to rank; Googlebot does not bother crawling our real content (product pages specifically) and hammers the life out of our servers.
Since having Googlebot crawl and de-index tens of millions of old URLs would probably take years (?), my plan is this:
- 301 redirect all old SERP URLs to a new SERP URL.
- If new URL should not be indexed, add meta robots noindex tag on new URL.
- When it is evident that Google has indexed most "high quality" new URLs, robots.txt disallow crawling of old SERP URLs. Then directory style remove all old SERP URLs in GWT URL Removal Tool
- This would be an example of an old URL:
www.site.com/cgi-bin/weirdapplicationname.cgi?word=bmw&what=1.2&how=2 - This would be an example of a new URL:
www.site.com/search?q=bmw&category=cars&color=blue
I have to specific questions:
- Would Google both de-index the old URL and not index the new URL after 301 redirecting the old URL to the new URL (which is noindexed) as described in point 2 above?
- What risks are associated with removing tens of millions of URLs directory style in GWT URL Removal Tool? I have done this before but then I removed "only" some useless 50 000 "add to cart"-URLs.Google says themselves that you should not remove duplicate/thin content this way and that using this tool tools this way "may cause problems for your site".
And yes, these tens of millions of SERP URLs is a result of a faceted navigation/search function let loose all to long.
And no, we cannot wait for Googlebot to crawl all these millions of URLs in order to discover the 301. By then we would be out of business.Best regards,
TalkInThePark -
RE: HTML Forms Dilute Pagerank?
Thanks for answering. The question is rather wether G treats a form as a regular link (dilutes pagerank, passes pagerank), as a no-followed regular link (dilutes pagerank, does not pass pagerank) or as an email link (does not dilute pagerank, does not pass pagerank). Anyone?
-
HTML Forms Dilute Pagerank?
Today, we have way too many links on our homepage. About 30 of them are add-to-basket links (regular html links) pointing to a separate application. This application 302 redirects the client back to the referring page.
I have two questions:
1. Does the current implementation of our buttons dilute pagerank? Bear in mind the 302 redirect.
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, would transforming the buttons into form buttons change anything to the better? We would still 302 back to the referring page. I know Gbot follows GET forms and even POST forms, but does GBot pass on pagerank to the form URL?