2

For the last half a year the number of indexed pages for our site went ~100M pages down, and it's been on this lower level for quite some time already. The number of visits, sessions and crawled pages didn't really change since then. After deleting some old parts of robots.txt, the number of blocked pages dropped by 90% and is really low currently. Indexed pages number didn't increase though.

How reliable the Index Status in Google Search Console is? Should this drop alarm us if no other metrics are affected in the same way?

  • 2
    100M indexed URLs is a lot. Are you sure you should have that many (even amazon.co.uk only has ~44M)? I'd guess you have lots of variable URLs (e.g. sorts/filters/search) that may exist but don't actually need to be indexed. – Andrew Lott Jan 4 '16 at 11:53
  • How many pages does your site have? – Dave Jan 4 '16 at 14:16
  • It sounds like there were a ton of low performing pages indexed from your site and Google is now trimming the fat. If the pages are essentially useless and is removed, why would any other metric change? It would not. It seems like your site needed a detailed audit - even now would not hurt. – closetnoc Jan 4 '16 at 15:54
1

How reliable the Index Status in Google Search Console is? Should this drop alarm us if no other metrics are affected in the same way?

It's very reliable and yes it should alarm you. But, that's not the problem.

Problem is in this 100M part. How's it possible to have 100M URLs? I never encountered on that behaviour. Ebay and Amazon don't have that much URLs combined.

95% I'm sure that you have some viciously handled replicating malware out of hell that generated this amount of everything. And of curiosity, link us that page. :)

  • I don't quite understand why you write that eBay and Amazon don't have this many URLs combined, from what I see, it's exactly the opposite. Our website is a catalogue with a lot of pages in total. My guess is that Google indexed a bit too many different list pages, and now they simply changed the algorithm, which caused pages indexed separately in the past to be marked duplicates. PS I don't see a point in your edit of my original post. You didn't make it better, but instead you introduced a grammar mistake. That's not cool. – collector Mar 5 '16 at 15:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.