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 -
Use hreflang on links without rel alternative?
Does it do any good to use hreflang on links without rel="alternative" ? We have on each page a possibility to go to another language, but the languages root page and not an alternative version of that specific article.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Preen0 -
Rankings Drop since Humingbird - Could it be my link ratio between .co.uk / .com ?
Hi All, I have an UK tool hire eccomerce muliti location website with different locations pages for each category. My stratedgy has been to specialise on local search for each location as oppose to try and compete with highly competitive keywords on a national level. I do have some duplicate/ thin content issues on these location pages but I've been actively writting additional unique content on these pages to address this issue which also making sure my title tags, h1 , h2 tags etc are unique for each location along with having individual google local + pages etc etc. I have never previously been affected by any duplicate contents issues and always ranked first page (mainly top 5) for most of my local keywords). However, when google humingbird update came out , I suffered approx 25% drop in traffic and rankings. rom what I read , local search sites have suffered somewhat in this update and I did a link detox report to try and asterain toxic links etc. I found a few which I disavowled but I have had no manul penalty message in my GWT so I can only assume I was affected by an google algorithmic penalty. From looking at opensite explorer , I can see my link ratio for my .co.uk site shows 43% .com 37% .co.uk I am wondering if it could be this which has been the cause of my local rankings to fail ?. Has anyone else suffered the same as I am at my witts end as to what are the likely factors which could have caused such a drop ? Any tips, greatly appreciated. Happy to give my sites url if anyone would like to take a look ? thanks Sarah.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SarahCollins0 -
How to find affiliate sites linking to a competitor website?
Hello here, I am trying to understand the best way to find sites that are affiliate of a competitor, through link research. Typically our competitor's affiliates link to our competitor website via any of the following links: http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/ard.asp?SID=[aff_id]&LID=[link_id] http://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=[aff+id]&offerid=[off_id]&type=2&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.musicnotes.com%2Fsheetmusic%2Fmtd.asp%3Fppn%3D[item_id] The first link looks much easier to find, so I have tried to find the first kind of links with Google by using the "link:" clause as follows: link:http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/ard.asp Or, similarly, by using Open Site Explorer. But I always get 0 results! It is weird because I know there are thousands of affiliates out there with the same tracking code. How's that possible? Why does it look impossible to find the sites I am looking for? Would you suggest any different approach? Any ideas, suggestions and thoughts are very welcome! Thank you in advance. Fab.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Site wide links removal
A website of mine has about 4,000 backlinks of which 2,500 of them are coming from one website to the homepage and about 6 internal pages. These have been built up over about 5 years, mainly via article posts. The site was recently hit via penguin 2.0 but has only had natural links built so i'm wondering if the sitewide links are in fact the issue? The website linking to mine is an authority source within its niche but the concern is the amount of backlinks coming from this one site and if it may now be seen as having a negative impact. When ive reviewed the links from this one site via a backlink removal tool about 80% seem fine and suggestions are to remove about 20% of the backlinks. Would you keep all the sitewide backlinks or remove them?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jazavide
Have you come across a similar situation and how did it affect ranking/traffic?0 -
Broken Links from Open Site Explorer
I am trying to find broken internal links within my site. I found a page that was non-existent but had a bunch of internal links pointing to that page, so I ran an Open Site Explorer report for that URL, but it's limited to 25 URLs. Is there a way to get a report of all of my internal pages that link to this invalid URL? I tried using the link: search modifier in Google, but that shows no responses.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbaylor0 -
Would it be ok if my ccTLD (.au) has links pointing to my .com (main) site?
The main pages of my .au site are all in .au, but once you go to the inner pages, the users will be directed to my .com site. The .com will act as the content for the top pages of the .au. Would that be ok?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MicroSourcing_PRM0 -
Site Architecture: Cross Linking vs. Siloing
I'm curious to know what other mozzers think about silo's... Can we first all agree that a flat site architecture is the best practice? Relevant pages should be grouped together. Shorter, broader and (usually) therefore higher volume keywords should be towards the top of each category. Navigation should flow from general to specific. Agreed? As Google say's on page 10 of their SEO Starter Guide, "you should think about how visitors will go from a general page (your root page) to a page containing more specific content ." OK, we all agree so far, right? Great! Enter my question: Bruce Clay (among others) seem to recommend siloing as a best practice. While Richard Baxter (and many others @ SEOmoz), seem to view silos as a problem. Me? I've practiced (relevant) internal cross linking, and have intentionally avoided siloing in almost all cases. What about you? Is there a time and place to use silos? If so, when and where? If not, how do we rectify the seemingly huge differences of opinions between expert folks such as Baxter and Clay?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DonnieCooper7