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
-
Using "nofollow" internally can help with crawl budget?
Hello everyone. I was reading this article on semrush.com, published the last year, and I'd like to know your thoughts about it: https://www.semrush.com/blog/does-google-crawl-relnofollow-at-all/ Is that really the case? I thought that Google crawls and "follows" nofollowed tagged links even though doesn't pass any PR to the destination link. If instead Google really doesn't crawl internal links tagged as "nofollow", can that really help with crawl budget?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Our site is on a secure server (https) will a link to http:// be of less value?
Our site is hosted on a secure network (I.E. Our web address is - https://www.workbooks.com). Will a backlink pointing to: http://www.workbooks.com provide less value than a link pointing to: https://www.workbooks.com ? Many thanks, Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Sam.at.Moz0 -
Site rankings steadily decreasing - do I need to remove links?
Since mid-April, our ranking have been steadily declining. Our two main keywords are 'nuts and bolts' and 'bolts and nuts'. 'nuts and bolts' dropped from 7th to 46th in May and has recovered slightly to 28th, and 'bolts and nuts' moved from 7th to 16th, and is today 24th. Ranking on keywords we specialise in have fared better, but they're fairly niche. 'bsw bolts' has moved from 2nd to 4th, and 'imperial bolts' has moved from 1st to 4th. I think my link profile is the issue. I don't think we've been penalised by Penguin directly (I may be wrong, I don't think we'd be page 2 on such a competitive term as 'bolts and nuts' after Penguin if we had been penalised.), but I think what's happened is that sites that link to us have been penalised, resulting in a knock on effect. Does that sound right? Here's my link profile: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?site=www.thomassmithfasteners.com</a> I've been slowly building relevant links with prospective customers and kept up a very basic social media profile - just the odd blog post and sharing on Facebook and Twitter. Do I need to delete all the directory links? We do have links from directories that don't look fantastic, more are shown in Webmaster Tools than are listed here. Some of the directories no longer seem to exist, I take it I don't need to do anything and Google will catch up in those cases. Should I attempt to remove (or disavow) all links with names like best-directory etc? Or should I just concentrate on building better links? I'm not sure where to start! Any advice is greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Stephen
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stephenshone0 -
What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"?
Hi mozzers, I would like to know What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"? and is it dangerous to have both of these elements combined together? One of my client's page has the these two elements and kind of bothers me because I only know link rel="canonical" to be relevant to remove duplicates. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
When crawls occur - when will my links show up in Open Site Explorer
Hello everyone, I've been building links for a while now and none of them show up in Explorer. My domain authority hasn't changed for about a month or so. When does Google do crawls and when does SEOMoz do crawls? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Harbor_Compliance0 -
Multiple sites - ownership & link structure
Hi All I am in the process of creating a number of sites within the garden products sector; each site will have unique, original content and there will be no cross over. So for example I will have one on lawn mowers, one on greenhouses, another on garden furniture etc. My original thinking was to create a single limited company that would own each of the domains, therefore all the registrant details will be identical. Is this a sensible thing to do? (I want to be totally white hat) And what, if any, are the linking opportunities between each of the sites? (16 in total). Not to increase ranking, more from an authoritative perspective. And finally, how should I link between each site? Should I no follow the links? Should I use keyword contextual links? Any advice ideas would be appreciated 🙂 Please note: It has been suggested that I just create one BIG site. I've decided against this as I want to use the keyword for each website in the domain name as I believe this still has value. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danielparry0 -
Penalized for "Unnatural Links" on Webmaster Tools
Has anyone ever logged in to Google Webmaster tools and seen a message about them seeing unnatural links (as a warning) Our homepage lost all its rankings. I will submit a reconsideration request. We don't engage in link buying practices (some directories, thats all.) Any feedback, please? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PaulDylan0 -
How was cdn.seomoz.org configured?
The SEOmoz CDN appears to have a "pull zone" that is set to the root of the domain, such that any static file can be addressed from either subdomain: http://www.seomoz.org/q/moz_nav_assets/images/logo.png http://cdn.seomoz.org/q/moz_nav_assets/images/logo.png The risk of this configuration is that web pages (not just images/CSS/JS) also get cached and served by the CDN. I won't put the URL here for fear of Google indexing it, but if you replace the 'www' in the URL below with 'cdn', you'll see a cached copy of the original: http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/the-greatest-attribution-ever-graphed The worst-case scenario is that the homepage gets indexed. But this doesn't happen here: http://cdn.seomoz.org/ That URL issues a 301 redirect back to the canonical www subdomain. As it should. Here's my question: how was that done? Because maxcdn.com can't do it. If you set a "pull zone" to your entire domain, they'll cache your homepage and everything else. googlebot has a field day with that; it will reindex your entire site off the CDN. Maybe the SEOmoz CDN provider (CloudFront) allows specific URLs to be blocked? Or do you detect the CloudFront IPs and serve them a 301 (which they'd proxy out to anyone requesting cdn.seomoz.org)? One solution is to create a pull zone that points to a folder, like example.com/images... but this doesn't help a complex site that has cacheable content in multiple places (do you Wordpress users really store ALL your static content under /wp-content/ ?). Or, as suggested above, dynamically detect requests from the CDN's proxy servers, and give them a 301 for any HTML-page request. This gets complex quickly, and is both prone to breakage and very difficult to regression-test. Properly retrofitting a complex site to use a CDN, without creating a half-dozen new CDN subdomains, does not appear to be easy.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mcglynn0