\n\u201cOur quality algorithms do look at the website overall, so they do look at everything that\u2019s indexed.\u00a0 And if we see that the bulk of the indexed content is actually lower quality content then we might say \u2018well, maybe this site overall is kind of lower quality\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
All those taxonomy pages lurking in the depths of your site are causing index bloat<\/strong>, where an excessive number of low-value pages have made it into the index and are dragging down your ability to rank all pages on your website.<\/p>\n<\/span>How to optimize site taxonomies<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>SEO category pages<\/span><\/h3>\nIf you call yourself a technical SEO, chances are you\u2019ve invested endless hours into category tree (re)design.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ve delved into keyword research, competitor analysis, current user behaviour (navigation patterns, page entries, time on page, conversion rates, search behaviour, etc.), brand positioning and content coverage to see if you can not only match but satisfy the user\u2019s intent.<\/p>\n
This is followed by seemingly endless discussions and workshops with stakeholders to get buy-in and, after a lot of compromises, an agreement.<\/p>\n
Then, finally, it\u2019s time for a nerve-wracking launch that hopefully leads to an upward trend of organic search sessions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But site taxonomy is beyond category tree design alone.<\/p>\n
On an enterprise-level website, you may have say 50 to 300 categories and subcategories, but tens of thousands of pages auto-generated by other taxonomies, such as tags or facet combinations.<\/p>\n
So when Googlebot comes along to look at your website, categories are only a small part of the whole.<\/p>\n
And optimizing only a fraction of your website, even if they are the pages with the highest search volume, is not enough. Index bloat can impact your site authority.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s more, there\u2019s a high chance for some of your curated category pages there lurks an unseen tag page competing for the same topic. For example, if a restaurant site may have both a category and tag page for \u201cpizza.\u201d<\/p>\n
This negatively impacts user experience as it makes it more difficult to find the content the user is looking for. It also dilutes the site\u2019s topical authority, and thus its ability to rank either of the pages.<\/p>\n
<\/span>SEO tag pages<\/span><\/h3>\nGet a database export of every tag on your website.<\/p>\n
You will likely be shocked by not only the number, but also the terms used.<\/p>\n
Excessive tagging is criminal. The worst offenders are on sites where content creators can assign free-form tags to each post.<\/p>\n
These tags are designed to speak to the entities in the story \u2013 things like a person, an event, a location or a broader topic.<\/p>\n
I have seen multitudes of tags with only one article assigned. Not because the topic hadn\u2019t been covered many times, but because the people manually tagging the pages don\u2019t all think in the same words. So you get all kinds of keyword variation tag pages.<\/p>\n
For example, for one topic (e.g., RuPaul\u2019s Drag Race), there can be multiple free-form tags:<\/p>\n
\nRuPaul Drag Race<\/li>\n RPDR<\/li>\n Ru-Pauls Drag Race<\/li>\n UKDragRace<\/li>\n Ru-Paul<\/li>\n All Stars<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nEach creating an indexable tag page (hi, BuzzFeed):<\/p>\nAnd this was just one topic.<\/p>\n
More often than not, sites have no agreed upon limitations. No naming conventions. No method. Only madness.<\/p>\n
By creating so many redundant tag pages, link equity value is split across multiple pages and the site is bloated with similar but thin content pages, which sends mixed signals to Google.<\/p>\n
Quick fix<\/strong>: Use autocomplete to suggest existing tags as content creators begin to type.<\/p>\nLong-term SEO solution<\/strong>: Review the entire tag list. Keep tags that are valuable to users. 301 redirect or remove with a 410 those which aren\u2019t. Then implement relevant limitations on tag creation, either via business processes or a technological approach.<\/p>\n<\/span>SEO faceted navigation<\/span><\/h3>\nEnterprise-level ecommerce or classifieds sites are some of the worst offenders when it comes to bloated faceted navigation.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nFor many sites, similar to tag pages, historical free-form entry has been the issue. So you end up with a color filter with blue, petrol and turquoise. <\/p>\n
This creates thin content issues for the more uncommon colors \u2013 and annoys the user because there are only three items in petrol, one is actually dark blue and the other turquoise.<\/p>\n
For other sites, the issue is balancing the needs of the user to filter down to exactly what they are looking for against indexable pages being high quality and unique. For example, you can filter down by every neighborhood in a city, but only three have substantial content.<\/p>\n
Many sites handle their faceted navigation with dynamic parameters and falsely believe this action alone takes care of all things SEO. However, depending how it is implemented, it can have a wide range of impacts on your SEO.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s more, a wild proliferation of facets will inevitably lead to pages that have too little content to justify their existence. They are not useful to the user and won\u2019t send a strong topical authority signal to search engines.<\/p>\n
\nQuick fix<\/strong>: Consolidate facet values that will never offer either users or Google value, adding a 301 redirect if the facet was indexed.<\/li>\nLong-term SEO solution<\/strong>: Review all existing and prospective facets (keys and their values) with both SEO potential and audience usage metrics in mind. Based on this list, take data-backed decisions which are to be static vs. dynamic URLs, as well as how you will handle the parameters. Finally, decide who in your organization owns the ongoing maintenance of that list.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n