Does Google pass link juice a page receives if the URL parameter specifies content and has the Crawl setting in Webmaster Tools set to NO?
-
The page in question receives a lot of quality traffic but is only relevant to a small percent of my users. I want to keep the link juice received from this page but I do not want it to appear in the SERPs.
-
Update - Google has crawled this correctly and is returning the correct, redirected page. Meaning, it seems to have understood that we don't want any of the parametered versions indexed ("return representative link") from our original page and all of its campaign-tracked brethren, and is then redirecting from the representative link correctly.
And finally there was peace in the universe...for now. ;> Tim
-
Agree...it feels like leaving a bit to chance, but I'll keep an eye on it over the next few weeks to see what comes of it. We seem to be re-indexed every couple of days, so maybe I can test it out Monday.
BTW, this issue really came up when we were creating a server side 301 redirect for the root URL, and then I got to wondering if we'd need to set up an irule for all parameters. Hopefully not...hopefully Google will figure it out for us.
Thanks Peter. Tim
-
It's really tough to say, but moving away from "Let Google decide" to a more definitive choice seems like a good next step. You know which URL should be canonical, and it's not the parameterized version (if I'm understanding correctly).
If you say "Let Google decide", it seems a bit more like rel=prev/next. Google may allow any page in the set to rank, BUT they won't treat those pages as duplicates, etc. How does this actually impact the PR flow to any given page in that series? We have no idea. They're probably consolidating them on the fly, to some degree. They basically have to be, since the page they choose to rank form the set is query-dependent.
-
This question deals with dynamically created pages, it seems, and Google seems to recommend NOT choosing the "no" option in WMT - choose "yes" when you edit the parameter settings for this and you'll see an option for your case, I think, Christian (I know this is 3 years late, but still).
BUT I have a situation where we use SiteCatalyst to create numerous tracking codes as parameters to a URL. Since there is not a new page being created, we are following Google's advice to select "no" - apparently will:
"group the duplicate URLs into one cluster and select what we think is the "best" URL to represent the cluster in search results. We then consolidate properties of the URLs in the cluster, such as link popularity, to the representative URL."
What worries me is that a) the "root" URL will not be returned, somehow (perhaps due to freakish amount of inbound linking to one of our parametered URLs), and b) the root URL will not be getting the juice. The reason we got suspicious about this problem in the first place was that Google was returning one of our parametered URLs (PA=45) instead of the "root" URL (PA=58).
This may be an anomaly that will be sorted out now that we changed the parameter setting from "Let Google Decide" to "No, page does not change" i.e. return the "Representative" link, but would love your thoughts - esp on the juice passage.
Tim
-
This sounds unusual enough that I'd almost have to see it in action. Is the JS-based URL even getting indexed? This might be a non-issue, honestly. I don't have solid evidence either way about GWT blocking passing link-juice, although I suspect it behaves like a canonical in most cases.
-
I agree. The URL parameter option seems to be the best solution since this is not a unique page. It is the main page with javascript that calls for additional content to be displayed in the form of a lightbox overlay if the condition is right. Since it is not an actual page, I cannot add the rel-canonical statement to the header. It is not clear however, whether the link juice will be passed with this parameter setting in Webmaster Tools.
-
If you're already use rel-canonical, then there's really no reason to also block the parameter. Rel-canonical will preserve any link-juice, and will also keep the page available to visitors (unlike a 301-redirect).
Are you seeing a lot of these pages indexed (i.e. is the canonical tag not working)? You could block the parameter in that case, but my gut reaction is that it's unnecessary and probably counter-productive. Google may just need time to de-index (it can be a slow process).
I suspect that Google passes some link-juice through blocked parameters and treats it more like a canonical, but it may be situational and I haven't seen good data on that. So many things in Google Webmaster Tools end up being a bit of a black box. Typically, I view it as a last resort.
-
I can just repeat myself: Set Crawl to yes and use rel canonical with website.com/?v3 pointing to website.com
-
My fault for not being clear.
I understand that the rel=canonical cannot be added to the robot.txt file. We are already using the canonical statement.
I do not want to add the page with the url parameter to the robot.txt file as that would prevent the link juice from being passed.
Perhaps this example will help clarify:
URL = website.com
ULR parameter = website.com/?v3
website.com/?v3 has a lot of backlinks. How can I pass the link juice to website.com and Not have website.com/?v3 appear in the SERP"s?
-
I'm getting a bit lost with your explanation, maybe it would be easier if I saw the urls, but here"s a brief:
I would not use parameters at all. Cleen urls are best for seo, remove everything not needed. You definately don't need an url parameter to indicate that content is unique for 25%of traffic. (I got a little bit lost here: how can a content be unique for just part of your traffic. If it is found elsewhere on your pae it is not unique, if it is not found elswehere, it is unique) So anyway those url parameters do not indicate nothing to google, just stuff your url structure with useles info (for google) so why use them?
I am already using a link rel=canonical statement. I don't want to add this to the robots.txt file as that would prevent the juice from being passed.
I totally don't get this one. You can't add canonical to robots.txt. This is not a robots.txt statement.
To sum up: If you do not want your parametered page to appear in the serps than as I said: Set Crawl to yes! and use rel canonical. This way page will no more apperar in serps, but will be available for readers and will pass link juice.
-
The parameter to this URL specifies unique content for 25% of my traffic to the home page. If I use a 301 redirect than those people will not see the unique content that is relevant to them. But since this parameter is only relevant to 25% of my traffic, I would like the main URL displayed in the SERPs rather then the unique one.
Google's Webmaster Tools let you choose how you would Google to handle URL parameters. When using this tool you must specify the parameters effect on content. You can then specify what you would like googlebot to crawl. If I say NO crawl, I understand that the page with this parameter will not be crawled but will the link juice be passed to the page without the parameter?
I am already using a link rel=canonical statement. I don't want to add this url parameter to the robots.txt file either as that would prevent the juice from being passed.
What is the best way to keep this parameter and pass the juice to the main page but not have the URL parameter displayed in the SERPs?
-
What do you men by url parameter specifies content?
If a page is not crawled it definately won't pass link juice. Set Crawl to yes and use rel canonical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm9onOGTgeM
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
-
Old Content Pages
Hello we run a large sports website. Since 2009 we have been doing game previews for most games every day for all the major sports..IE NFL, CFB, NBA, MLB etc.. Most of these previews generate traffic for 1-2 days leading up to or day of the event. After that there is minimal if any traffic and over the years almost nothing to the old previews. If you do a search for any of these each time the same matchup happens Google will update its rankings and filter out any old matchups/previews with new ones. So our question is what would you do with all this old content? Is it worth just keeping? Google Indexes a majority of it? Should we prune some of the old articles? The other option we thought of and its not really practical is to create event pages where we reuse a post each time the teams meet but if there was some sort of benefit we could do it.
Technical SEO | | dueces0 -
Google Indexing Pages with Made Up URL
Hi all, Google is indexing a URL on my site that doesn't exist, and never existed in the past. The URL is completely made up. Anyone know why this is happening and more importantly how to get rid of it. Thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | brian-madden0 -
Big page of clients - links to individual client pages with light content - not sure if canonical or no-follow - HELP
Not sure what best practice here is: http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ Is this is a situation where I'm best off adding canonical tags back to the main clients page, or to the practice area each client falls under? No-following all these links and adding canonical? No-follow/No-index all client pages? need some advice here...
Technical SEO | | simplycary0 -
How Does Google's "index" find the location of pages in the "page directory" to return?
This is my understanding of how Google's search works, and I am unsure about one thing in specific: Google continuously crawls websites and stores each page it finds (let's call it "page directory") Google's "page directory" is a cache so it isn't the "live" version of the page Google has separate storage called "the index" which contains all the keywords searched. These keywords in "the index" point to the pages in the "page directory" that contain the same keywords. When someone searches a keyword, that keyword is accessed in the "index" and returns all relevant pages in the "page directory" These returned pages are given ranks based on the algorithm The one part I'm unsure of is how Google's "index" knows the location of relevant pages in the "page directory". The keyword entries in the "index" point to the "page directory" somehow. I'm thinking each page has a url in the "page directory", and the entries in the "index" contain these urls. Since Google's "page directory" is a cache, would the urls be the same as the live website (and would the keywords in the "index" point to these urls)? For example if webpage is found at wwww.website.com/page1, would the "page directory" store this page under that url in Google's cache? The reason I want to discuss this is to know the effects of changing a pages url by understanding how the search process works better.
Technical SEO | | reidsteven750 -
Google webmaster errors
**If you know what these google webmasters errors mean, and you can explain it to me in simple english and tell me how I can locate the problem, I would really appreciate it!. <colgroup><col width=""><col width=""><col width=""><col width=""><col width="*"><col width="124"><col width="54"></colgroup>
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO
| | | | | Server error | | | | Soft 404 | | | | Access denied | | Not found | | | Not followed | | | |** I have many of these errors, is it harming SEO?Yoseph0 -
Duplicate page content
Hello, My site is being checked for errors by the PRO dashboard thing you get here and some odd duplicate content errors have appeared. Every page has a duplicate because you can see the page and the page/~username so... www.short-hairstyles.com is the same as www.short-hairstyles.com/~wwwshor I don't know if this is a problem or how the crawler found this (i'm sure I have never linked to it). But I'd like to know how to prevent it in case it is a problem if anyone knows please? Ian
Technical SEO | | jwdl0 -
Ignore url parameters without the 'parameter=' ?
We are working on an ecommerce site that sorts out the products by color and size but doesn't use the sortby= but uses sortby/. Can we tell Google to ignore the sortby/ parameter in Webmaster Tools even though it is not followed by an = sign? For example: www.mysite.com/shirts/tshirts/shopby/size-m www.mysite.com/shirts/tshirts/shopby/color-black Can we tell WMT to ignore the 'shopby/' parameter so that only the tshirts page will be indexed? Or does the shopby have to be set up as 'shopby=' ? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Hakkasan0 -
Existing Pages in Google Index and Changing URLs
Hi!! I am launching a newly recoded site this week and had a another noobie question. The URL structure has changed slightly and I have installed a 301 redirect to take care of that. I am wondering how Google will handle my "old" pages? Will they just fall out of the index? Or does the 301 redirect tell Google to rewrite the URLs in the index? I am just concerned I may see an "old" page and a "new" page with the same content in the index. Just want to make sure I have covered all my bases. Thanks!! Lynn
Technical SEO | | hiphound0