Does "seomoz.org" lose LJ when someone use "seomoz.COM" as the link site?
-
thanks...or does the 301 solve the issue 100%?
-
I stated, the path with upper case was a canonical isssues, not the domain name, you suggested i was confused or mistaken.
i was not canfused or mistaken, I think it is pretty plain you were
-
Alan, I am at a loss here. I don't know what words or combination of words I can type to help you.
The original Q&A asked about a domain URL specifically. For an unknown reason you chose to bring up the folder path portion of the URL which I agree uses a different set of case sensitive rules. All of my comments are directed at the base domain URL which I have expressly and repeatedly shared.
At this point I have done all I can here and I will let this topic go. If you disagree with any portion, that is perfectly ok.
Best Regards
-
Well in this case there is not much to disagree on.
we can test it
Lynux server
https://www.linux.com/learn/docs 200 OK
https://www.linux.com/learn/DOCS 404 Page doe not exist , does not resolve to lower case
Windows server
http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster/ 200 OK
http://www.bing.com/toolbox/WEBMASER/ 200 OK does not resolve to lower caseWindows server with 301 redirect (my server I have 301 to lowercase)
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-issues-involving-the-upper-and-lower-case 200 OK
http://perthseocompany.com.au/SEO/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-issues-involving-the-upper-and-lower-case 301 permanent redirect , resolves only because of a 301 redirect -
My original reply was going to be....we will have to agree to disagree. I should have stuck to that reply. This issue is not related to the original Q&A anyway. My apologies for allowing the convo to move in this direction.
As for the camelCase example, no it would not resolve unless you 301 it, it would lead to canonical issues (assuming you are talking of path not domain)
The original Q&A only asked about the domain name. I am not sure why you ever brought up the deeper URL path as it seems completely unrelated to the question. My responses were applicable to the domain name itself as I indicated.
Camel case in the domain name is perfectly acceptable and does not case any issues.
-
As for the camelCase example, no it would not resolve unless you 301 it, it would lead to canonical issues (assuming you are talking of path not domain)
IIS servers have a built in url-rewrite template you can use to correct this.
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-issues-involving-the-upper-and-lower-case -
I said "(disregarding domain name), " meaning the path
Read first post
“I am not sure about the actual domain name as it seems to give a 200 OK status for seomoz.ORG but resolves to seomoz.org”Meaning that’s fine, because it resolved
“But try changing the path “to does-seomoz-ORG-lose-…””
You will see that you still get the 200 OK status but does not resolve to ”does-seomoz-org-lose-…”
search engines will see this as 2 different URL’s, really it should 301 to lower case
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo... “Meaning it is not ok
Domain seems to not be a problem, but path is.The link you posted is confirms what I said, at least with windows servers (As I have always worked with Microsoft technologies)
With lynx the problem is worse because it 404’s , this is something I did not know. This would explain the /q/ in the path 404ing if you capitalize it. The rest of the path acts like a windows server (does not 404), I assume this is because of some URL-rewriting.
But the point is UPERCASE in the path will cause a canonical issue. The same conclusion as Ann SmartyI say it SEEMS to be ok for domain name, because I believe it is ok I don’t really know how it resolves, I also notice that Ann Smarty also is ambiguous as for domain name.
-
I believe you are confused or mistaken Alan.
To the best of my knowledge, it makes absolutely no difference to anything related to Google whether any letters are capitalized in a domain name. In 100% of cases, Google will show the domain name of an organic search result in lower case.
Some support on this statement: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/url-capitalization-and-seo/12667/
I have personally used websites where internal links always used camel-case, but Google still displayed the URL as lower-case. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. I would love to learn a bit and update my knowledge.
-
Well depends on what you mean by case sensitive, the url will work, but it will be seen as 2 separate Url’s to search engines if you use upper case or not(disregarding domain name) , to me case sensitive means it will 404. That is why I pointed out that the “/q/ “ is truly case sensitive, if you change it to /Q/ it will 404
Case sensitive in programming languages means how you compare, Binary or TextIn text Q= q
In binary Q<>q
as they have different binary numbers, the q in the path of this post is probably used in a binary compare and is case sensitive, the rest of the path is not case sensitive.
-
I agree with Phillip as well.
A 301 redirect is designed to redirect the user from the old URL to the new one. When the redirect occurs, an estimated 1 - 10% of link juice is lost. This loss is by design and will always occur on any form of redirect. The loss is amplified when multiple redirects occur. A good short video on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lVPrYoBkA
I believe Anthony only capitalized the .COM for emphasis. It is true the folder and file portions of a URL are case sensitive, the domain name is not. You can visit any URL on the internet via any form of capitalization of it's domain name. www.seomoz.org = wWw.SeOmoz.ORG.
-
Philip is correct, they will lose link juice thought a 301 from com to org
but it goes further then that as you used uppercase letters. I am not sure about the actual domain name as it seems to give a 200 OK status for seomoz.ORG but resolves to seomoz.org
But try changing the path “to does-seomoz-ORG-lose-…”
You will see that you still get the 200 OK status but does not resolve to ”does-seomoz-org-lose-…”
search engines will see this as 2 different URL’s, really it should 301 to lower case
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-multiple-canonical-formats
Something else I noticed was the /q/ in the path, if you change that to /Q/ you get a 404, this would be because of some code they have comparing the q as binary and not text I suggest -
A 301 redirect causes a link to lose as much as 10% of its link juice so SEOMoz doesn't quite get as much, but they still get the vast majority of it.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Rel="prev" / "next"
Hi guys, The tech department implemented rel="prev" and rel="next" on this website a long time ago.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AdenaSEO
We also added a canonical tag to the 'own' page. We're talking about the following situation: https://bit.ly/2H3HpRD However we still see a situation where a lot of paginated pages are visible in the SERP.
Is this just a case of rel="prev" and "next" being directives to Google?
And in this specific case, Google deciding to not only show the 1st page in the SERP, but still show most of the paginated pages in the SERP? Please let me know, what you think. Regards,
Tom1 -
Realtor site with external links in navigation
I have a client with a realtor site that uses IDX for the listings feed. We have several external links going over to the IDX site for various live custom searches (ie: luxury listings, waterfront listings, etc...). We are getting a Moz spam ranking of 2/7 for both "Large Number of External Links" and "External Links in Navigation". Chances are, these are related. My question is this: (1) Being the score is only 2/7, should I bother with fixing this? (2) If I add a rel="nofollow" to all the site-wide links (in header, footer & menu) will this help? I couldn't find anything definitive in the Q&A search. Looking forward to any insights!!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcallander1 -
With or without the "www." ?
Is there any benefit whatsoever to having the www. in the URL?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JordanBrown0 -
Does "Noindex" lead to Loss of Link Equity?
Our company has two websites with about 8,000 duplicate articles between them. Yep, 8,000 articles were posted on both sites over the past few years. This is the definition of cross-domain duplicate content. Plan A is to set all of the articles to "noindex,follow" on the site that we care less about (site B). We are not redirecting since we want to keep the content on that site for on-site traffic to discover. If we do set them to "noindex," my concern is that we'll lose massive amounts of link equity acquired over time...and thus lose domain authority...thus overall site rankability. Does Google treat pages changed to "noindex" the same as 404 pages? If so, then I imagine we would lose massive link equity. Plan B is to just wait it out since we're migrating site B to site A in 6-9 months, and hope that our more important site (site A) doesn't get a Panda penalty in the meantime. Thoughts on the better plan?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | M_D_Golden_Peak0 -
"nocontent" class use for Google Custom Search: SEO Ramifications?
Hi all, Have a client that uses Google Custom Search tool which is crawling, indexing and returning millions of irrelevant results for keywords that are on every page of the site. IT/Web dev. team is considering adding a class attribute to prohibit Google Custom Search from indexing bolierplate content regions. Here's the link to Google's custom search help page: http://support.google.com/customsearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2364585 "...If your pages have regions containing boilerplate content that's not relevant to the main content of the page, you can identify it using the nocontent class attribute. When Google Custom Search sees this tag, we'll ignore any keywords it contains and won't take them into account when calculating ranking for your Custom Search engine. (We'll still follow and crawl any links contained in the text marked nocontent.) To use the nocontent class attribute, include the boilerplate content in a tag (for example, span or div) like this: Google Custom Search also notes:"Using nocontent won't impact your site's performance in Google Web Search, or our crawling of your site, in any way. We'll continue to follow any links in tagged content; we just won't use keywords to calculate ranking for your Custom Search engine."Just want to confirm if anyone can forsee any SEO implications the use of this div could create? Anyone have experience with this?Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MRM-McCANN0 -
Is my "term & conditions"-"privacy policy" and "About Us" pages stealing link juice?
should i make them no follow? or is this a bogus method?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEObleu.com0 -
Use rel=canonical to save otherwise squandered link juice?
Oftentimes my site has content which I'm not really interested in having included in search engine results. Examples might be a "view cart" or "checkout" page, or old products in the catalog that are no longer available in our system. In the past, I'd blocked those pages from being indexed by using robots.txt or nofollowed links. However, it seems like there is potential link juice that's being lost by removing these from search engine indexes. What if, instead of keeping these pages out of the index completely, I use to reference the home page (http://www.mydomain.com) of the business? That way, even if the pages I don't care about accumulate a few links around the Internet, I'll be capturing the link juice behind the scenes without impacting the customer experience as they browse our site. Is there any downside of doing this, or am I missing any potential reasons why this wouldn't work as expected?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cadenzajon1