Welcome to the Q&A Forum

How about: https://unused-css.com ?

Hi Yosef,

Seen this many times, it takes Google sometimes up to a year for bigger content sites to have all the content removed for the original domain in their index and have all links on the new domain indexed. This is not really a duplicate content case as Google should be able to follow the redirects to the new content and as with that the old content is not available anymore.

Hi Jay,

You happen to know ScreamingFrog already, it can help you in crawling the whole site and then checking if there are already rel prev or rel next items on the pages in order to make sure that you're already making sure you don't create duplicates.

Let's turn this around, it probably won't help it improve. If it will really hurt you, I'm not so sure about that. While looking at the source code it feels like there can be lot of stuff optimised. I see over 10 different CSS files being included which means you're doing a ton of requests to things that can be combined in 1 of them and so with that slowing down your site and pages.

Hi Richard,

Are you able to share the site we're talking about here? That would make it easier for us to help you with feedback on the specific example.

Are you still submitting a Google News Sitemap to Google Search Console? Because usually that's the biggest reason where these errors are coming from because Google is picking up these kind of 'new' pages/articles as news content and then seeing it doesn't match with their guidelines.

Like Dmitri mentioned, it shouldn't really matter it's redundancy. In the last case it could sometimes be useful for bigger sites to make statement or tags specific to certain engines to keep their behaviours from being different.

I wouldn't remove the code from the page, in my experience the Structured Data Markup Helper can miss certain pages and markup on some pages as their coverage is not a 100%. By using the code still you make sure that it covers a 100%.

Hi Marc,

You're definitely getting the idea of silos. I'm not sure though if you should or should not be linking to other silos. In some cases it can be benefitial as the silos could be relevant to each other as well. This used to be the case for a site I used to work on and still in some cases I can see a lot of potential in interlinking certain channels together.

Martijn.

Hi,

So based on the sitemaps that are generated by Yoast I wouldn't really care much about it. Deeper pages in the site should always have a lower priority as the closer you get to the homepage the more important they become.

Regarding the folder structure, I would go with the general keyword + focus keywords pages.

Martijn.

Hi Nico,

As you said it's far from prefect but I would indeed go with using a canonical on the pages that have duplicate variants. But if you're doing this already then it might be not that much more effort to also link them back on the back-end of your site so you can do more advanced things.

We have over 70.000 posts and are having 0 issues with the sitemaps part of the Yoast plugin. So I would really recommend going with that one.

Hi Juan,

I don't see any issue doing that, we've been doing that for years and never had issues with submitting multiple sitemap indexes. At some point for bigger sites you always work with multiple platforms that might have their own plugins that can be used to generate sitemaps + indexes. So submitting them to Google Search Console shouldn't be an issue because of that.

Martijn.

Hi Tom,

It depends, for the /sale/ I would make an exception to make sure that it could be sales pages. But for the other pages I wouldn't want a search engine to waste any crawl budget by looking at these pages for a start. That's why I would go there with a robots.txt implementation instead of META robots as then they'll still visit the page to figure out there they won't index the page.

Sitemaps is definitely not the way to go for this as you can't just have an expires tag in there and it would make pages go away. The best option to go with is the meta robots and then put them either on nonindex, nofollow, or noindex, follow. With this approach and hopefully with a relative high crawl rate you can make sure that the data from these pages will be removed from the Google Index as soon as possible.

If you still want these pages to be indexed but maybe just not have them crawled anymore, which I don't think you'd like to do based on your explanation then go with robots.txt and excluding the pages in there that you'd like to.

Yes, it's correct!

Yes it can definitely hurt your rankings as it will give a signal to Google that the page is indeed somewhere else and for a homepage that is usually not the case. I would to try to get rid of the canonical URL if that indeed is the way to go.

Hi Sachin,

AMP isn't really meant yet for product pages as it's mostly something that works for publishers on pages that have a lot of content and not really a next step as in e-commerce store. But because of a plugin you would already be able to instantly create the millions of pages as the code takes care of the data and it won't mean you have to set it up everywhere.

Hi,

This is a common thing that you see on bigger sites, either product names or company names are the same and at scale that creates near duplicate titles or pages. What I would recommend is adding additional data, about either the location, pay, position type (fulltime,parttime,etc) to the title.

Martijn.

I would definitely make sure that the pages that are expired will indeed return a 404.

In addition, what you could do as well for the duplicate content pages is use a canonical tag to point back to the original page. Wouldn't that work for you?