Is Too Much Content A Bad Thing For SEO & Search Rankings?

Apr 23, 2007 • 7:03 am | comments (4) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under SEO - Search Engine Optimization
 

A Cre8asite Forums thread comments on a V7N Blog post named Excess pages polluting your website?

In short, John Scott of V7N, explained how he decided about a month ago to remove a large number of pages from his site that met the criteria of being "xxx number of days old, had less than xxx number of page views, and less than xxx number of responses." Then, about two weeks ago, he noticed an increase in search referrals of about "7,000 per day." He feels that this may be due to a direct relation to removing some of the "excess pages." Which takes him back to this big debate on content versus links, which John is clearly for links. He said:

Content (marketing copy, etc) may be king when it comes to converting visitors, but for search engine rankings, link weight, domain authority and intelligent distribution of link weight appears to be much more effective, even when it means removing content.

Now the Cre8asite Forums thread digs a bit deeper into the theory. Before we analyze some of the responses in the thread, I would just like to say that this removal of content from V7N is most likely not related to the increase in search referrals. I believe this was all about timing and how many people noticed a Google update about that time. I have several clients that saw significant improvements about that time as well.

The thread is calling for John Scott to reverse what he did and see if this has the reverse affect on his search rankings.

Barry Welford, the thread creator summarizes at the end of the thread:

Firstly I believe that the dilution of page rank transfer by cutting out the number if internal links from a web page is probably a minor issue. Unless you were changing this by an order of magnitude or even say down to a quarter of what they were, then this won't help much.

On the other hand I think it's good to have lots of content on the website given the 'long tail' nature of searchers' keyword queries. So I would leave all web pages up. However Bill's suggestion of revisiting web pages and editing them to make them stronger is excellent.

There is no doubt, I tend to see fresher posts on more of the fresher types of queries, ranking higher. I.e. a post on Google's first quarter results for 2007, the fresher the post, typically, the higher that post will rank in the search results. But this not always the case.

Cre8asite Moderator EGOL also goes back to one of his theories that larger Web sites may require more links than smaller sites to rank well.

Forum discussion at Cre8asite Forums.

Previous story: Weekly Search Buzz RoundUp - 4/20/07
 

Comments:

Barry Welford

04/23/2007 12:55 pm

Thanks for picking this one up, Barry S. I think it's an important issue to nail down. One small correction is your final point that it's my theory that larger Web sites may require more links than smaller sites. In fact that should be credited to Egol.

Barry Schwartz

04/23/2007 01:01 pm

Thanks, I fixed it.

No Name

04/23/2007 01:15 pm

What about the 404 errors when google is trying to reach the removed pages. Will this reflect in bad way.

Michael Martinez

04/23/2007 05:59 pm

I had a sneezing fit last week. This week my Google rankings improved across numerous domains. Like any good SEO, I can only conclude that there is a clearly irrefutable connection between my sneezing fit and the change in rankings. What affects any given site's performance in search results? 1) What you do with your pages 2) What other people do with their pages 3) What the search engines do with their data 4) What people search for So, sorry John, but that dog just won't hunt.

blog comments powered by Disqus