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
-
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Pages with Duplicate Content
When I crawl my site through moz, it shows lots of Pages with Duplicate Content. The thing is all that pages are pagination pages. How should I solve this issue?
Technical SEO | | 100offdeal0 -
Can Google Crawl This Page?
I'm going to have to post the page in question which i'd rather not do but I have permission from the client to do so. Question: A recruitment client of mine had their website build on a proprietary platform by a so-called recruitment specialist agency. Unfortunately the site is not performing well in the organic listings. I believe the culprit is this page and others like it: http://www.prospect-health.com/Jobs/?st=0&o3=973&s=1&o4=1215&sortdir=desc&displayinstance=Advanced Search_Site1&pagesize=50000&page=1&o1=255&sortby=CreationDate&o2=260&ij=0 Basically as soon as you deviate from the top level pages you land on pages that have database-query URLs like this one. My take on it is that Google cannot crawl these pages and is therefore having trouble picking up all of the job listings. I have taken some measures to combat this and obviously we have an xml sitemap in place but it seems the pages that Google finds via the XML feed are not performing because there is no obvious flow of 'link juice' to them. There are a number of latest jobs listed on top level pages like this one: http://www.prospect-health.com/optometry-jobs and when they are picked up they perform Ok in the SERPs, which is the biggest clue to the problem outlined above. The agency in question have an SEO department who dispute the problem and their proposed solution is to create more content and build more links (genius!). Just looking for some clarification from you guys if you don't mind?
Technical SEO | | shr1090 -
Google Displaying wrong URL but correct page title and description in SERPS
Hi. Our second highest performing page on Google is messed up in the SERPS. This is our login page. It always ranks high. It still does, but the URL is incorrect. Google is referencing an old redirect that was for a one off campaign from January 2014. This page has long been redirected. But now the vanity url for this page is what is displayed in Google. The link goes to our login page but once you log in it redirects you to a page saying the offer has expired instead of your account details. This is a huge issue for us. Can anyone shed some light? I'm having a rel canonical added since this page is used for a lot of vanity deeplinks.
Technical SEO | | PollyKane0 -
Why can no tool crawl this site?
I am trying to perform a crawl analysis on a client's website at https://www.bravosolution.com I have tried to crawl it with IIS for SEO, Sreaming Frog and Xenu and not one of them makes it further than the home page of the site. There is nothing I can see in the robots.txt that is blocking these agents. As far as I can see, Google is able to crawl the site although they have noticed a significant drop in organic traffic. Any advise would be very welcome Regards Danny
Technical SEO | | richdan0 -
132 pages reported as having Duplicate Page Content but I'm not sure where to go to fix the problems?
I am seeing “Duplicate Page Content” coming up in our
Technical SEO | | danatanseo
reports on SEOMOZ.org Here’s an example: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/williams-sound-ppa-r35-e http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/aphex-230-master-voice-channel-processor http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/AT-AE4100.prod These three pages are for completely unrelated products.
They are returning “200” status codes, but are being identified as having
duplicate page content. It appears these are all going to the home page, but it’s
an odd version of the home page because there’s no title. I would understand if these pages 301-redirected to the home page if they were obsolete products, but it's not a 301-redirect. The referring page is
listed as: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/cd-duplicators None of the 3 links in question appear anywhere on that page. It's puzzling. We have 132 of these. Can anyone help me figure out
why this is happening and how best to fix it? Thanks!0 -
How do i Organize an XML Sitemap for Google Webmaster Tools?
OK, so i used am xlm sitemap generator tool, xml-sitemaps.com, for Google Webmaster Tools submission. The problem is that the priorities are all out of wack. How on earth do i organize it with 1000's of pages?? Should i be spending hours organizing it?
Technical SEO | | schmeetz0 -
Link juice distributed to too many pages. Will noindex,follow fix this?
We have an e-commerce store with around 4000 product pages. Although our domain authority is not very high (we launched our site in February and now have around 30 RD's) we did rank on lots of long tail terms, and generated around 8000 organic visits / month. Two weeks ago we added another 2000 products to our existing catalogue of 2000 products, and since then our organic traffic dropped significantly (more than 50%). My guess is that link juice has been distributed to too many pages, causing rankings to drop on overall. I'm thinking about noindexing 50% of the product pages (the ones not receiving any organic traffic). However, I am not sure if this will lead to more link juice for the remaining 50% of the product pages, or not. So my question is: if I noindex,follow page A, will 100% of the linkjuice go to page B INSTEAD of page A, or will just a part of the link juice flow to page B (after flowing through page A first)? Hope my question is clear 🙂 P.s. We have a Dutch store, so the traffic drop is not a Panda issue 🙂
Technical SEO | | DeptAgency0