Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Will do. Thank you very much, Sam!

Hi there,

Our website is www.mormonhub.com. We have many other websites that we own as well. For some reason, our website has tens of thousands of Site Crawl Issues. We have tried looking into what's causing the problem, but can't figure it out. We do use Wordpress for our website. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

wFL8I

Thank you much. Reading your answer is giving me kind of a "duh" moment. I think if I were looking at this situation from the outside it would be a different story. I definitely am over thinking this. Thanks again!

Thanks for the great answers. We created the example link I gave above, along with many others that are similar, so they are not natural and they are pointing to other sites also owned by us.

I asked this exact same question on the google product forums and got pretty different answers. This is one answer that the others were agreeing with:

" It really seems like you're over complicating things to me.

1 - if the link doesn't add any value to users, why is it on your website? 2 - nofollow links that are unnatural. Since they are sites owned by the same org, I'd nofollow. If you nofollow, then you're fine. I'd stop focusing too much on exact match/ratios and just keep it logical. Is this link natural? (if not nofollow, but that doesn't make it a BAD link) and is this useful for my visitors (if not, don't add it!). "She mentions she would nofollow the links that do have value but are owned by us.Any thoughts on this response?

Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks

gotcha, thanks!

Update on this issue........

I ended up restoring a few of the links I removed but none of the truly crappy ones. It seems though I was just needing to be a little patient. This latest algo update shot be back up to 8th after I had dropped to 30th (after removing a ton of links). So it seems those links were still passing pagerank even though they were total garbage and didn't offer any value whatsoever. I think this is evidence that Google's quality standard when it comes to links definitely went up. Which I guess goes without saying but it's good to have proof. I also hadn't done anything else to the site for the last couple months other than remove those links so there shouldn't have been any other variables at play.

The view all version is something I've thought about doing.

The 301 redirects would be from the current URL structure to Google's example URL structure, not having page 3 redirect to page 1 etc.

Thanks

I failed to mention in the original question that those tags are being used.

Thank you very much. That is just what I was looking for.

The site does have and has had ranking issues since the first Penguin and has really had problems the last few months. And other than some minor things low quality links are really the only problem with the site.

Does anyone else have insight on this?

Right so if the pages no longer exist they need to be gotten rid of right? Most of these won't be removed by the webmasters and so they'll need to be disavowed right?

These pages were UGC and are essentially spam, and entirely irrelevant to anything on the site itself. So 301 redirects would not be wise or useful I don't think.

It hasn't received a manual action no. But that doesn't mean algorthimically the site isn't being affected.

So you're saying to not worry at all about these links?

They offer nothing in terms of value. If going to live pages they would be considered very spammy and completely irrelevant. But since these pages don't even exist you're saying it's unnecessary to bother with them at all?

I'm seeing the crawlability issue in WMT itself. The strange thing is that I know some pages have been indexed, we get most of our traffic organically from Google. But WMT shows zero pages indexed, zero traffic from search etc. The site has been verified as well.

The site is in Wordpress and I've been using a plugin called all in one schema.org rich snippets and schema creator by raven tools.

• As you can see it creates quite the eye sore especially if you were to start marking up a lot of stuff. Here is an example:

http://historyofmormonism.com/2014/03/26/hawns-mill-massacre-1838-resulted-30-mormon-casualties/

• Schema creator by raven tools lets you add markup right into the body of the page like you will see about a paragraph down. I "marked up" the person Alex Baugh just for an example. You will notice the container it creates right inside the article.

• If you scroll down to the bottom you'll notice a larger summary box, this is created by the other plugin; all in one schema.org rich snippets that marks up and creates a summary of the overall webpage.

• If you look at the support forums for this plugin here: http://wordpress.org/support/topic/all-the-info-i-fill-goes-directly-into-my-post?replies=5#post-4030332

• One of the authors of the plugin mentions that this box is necessary and includes a link to Google Webmaster forums backing it up, the 4th question down here:

https://sites.google.com/site/webmasterhelpforum/en/faq-rich-snippets#display

• I also thought that maybe it was only this one plugin; all in one schema.org rich snippets but this other plugin from Raven Tools does the same thing. These two plugins are also two of the most popular schema microdata plugins on Wordpress.

• This person has a similar question about the raven tools plugin

https://github.com/raventools/schema-creator/issues/104Thanks for your replies, I really appreciate it.

I did a link analysis on this site mormonwiki.com. And many of the pages shown to be linked to were pages like these http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Planning_a_trip_to_Rome_By_using_Movie_theatre_-_Your_five_Fun_Shows2052752

There happens to be thousands of them and these pages actually no longer exist but the links to them obviously still do. I am planning to proceed by disavowing these links to the pages that don't exist. Does anyone see any reason to not do this, or that doing this would be unnecessary?

Another issue is that Google is not really crawling this site, in WMT they are reporting to have not crawled a single URL on the site. Does anyone think the above issue would have something to do with this? And/or would you have any insight on how to remedy it?

I have a question about the "container" that's created whenever microdata markup is applied. What is the purpose of this? I know Google says it helps them understand your content etc. but it creates a really bad eyesore wherever microdata markup is used. Basically a box with all the markup details right there in the body. Has anyone else experienced this? Is this why microdata markup has been so slow to be adopted by webmasters? I understand "hiding" the box in your CSS is not a good idea either. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks