Is there actual risk to having multiple URLs that frame in main url? Or is it just bad form and waste of money?
-
Client has many urls that just frame in the main site. It seems like a total waste of money, but if they are frames, is there an actual risk?
-
In that case I agree with Kane; the short answer is it probably doesn't 'hurt' anything, but it's most likely not helping anything either. Those domains are an investment in a way, in terms of hosting, bandwidth, code maintenance, etc. And currently that investment isn't really being used to its full potential. I don't know if it's still the case, but WayFair (née CSN Stores) used to have at least 20-30 domains 301'd to all of their major properties, usually mispellings, (name)sucks, that kind of thing.
-
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I don't think his test justifies the assumption that the links are treated as standard links, but it appears you could certainly assume that they're passing anchor text.
I didn't see any mention of whether the iframed page was considered to be the linking page or whether the top level page was considered to be the linking page, however. I'd like to see how the link shows up in his Google Webmaster Tools, since that would be more valuable information IMO.
-
This thread just came out on Search Engine Roundtable today, which suggests Google may actually pay attention to content on an iframed site. I haven't had a chance to look at it in real detail yet, but it is interesting.
-
From what I understand, Google won't 'count' any content that is iframed on a site, so essentially Google will just see a blank page with an iframe to another site. That won't be a risk to the main domain that's in the iframe, but it's not doing anyone any good most likely.
Are they ranking for anything with these extra sites, and do they get any traffic?
I would probably see if they'll dedicate any budget & time to creating secondary sites on the better keywords, and I'd encourage them to 301 the rest. Possibly even dump some of the worse domains if they're not worth keeping, but the client might be trying to do a land grab on keywords to keep competitors out, which might be worth the annual fee to them.
-
@Valery, thanks for the reply. You did read it right, but I'm still looking for input on whether it's actually a risk or just a waste.
-
If I take your meaning correctly they have something like 'site.com' as their main page, but also have 'site1.com' which is just 'site.com' content in an iframe on 'site1.com'? It depends on what they're trying to accomplish I guess, but from a link juice/seo perspective that seems kind of backwards. Usually people just 301 the domains over.
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
-
Language Specific Characters in URLs for
Hi People, would really appreciate your advice as we are debating best practice and advice seems very subjective depending if we are talking to our dev or SEO team. We are developing a website aimed at the South American market with content entirely in Spanish. This is our first international site so our experience is limited. Should we be using Spanish characters (such as www.xyz.com/contáctanos) in URLs or should we use ASCII character replacements? What are the pros and cons for SEO and usability? Would really be great to get advice from the Moz community and make me look good at the same time as it was my suggestion 🙂 Nick
Technical SEO | | nickspiteri0 -
Shortening URL's
Hello again Mozzers, I am debating what could be a fairly drastic change to the company website and I would appreciate your thoughts. The URL structure is currently as follows Product Pages
Technical SEO | | ATP
www.url.co.uk/product.html Category Pages
www.url.co.uk/products/category/subcategory.html I am debating removing the /products/ section as i feel it doesn't really add much and lengthens the url with a pointless word. This does mean however redirecting about 50-60 pages on the website, is this worth it? Would it do more damage than good? Am i just being a bit OCD and it wont really have an impact? As always, thanks for the input0 -
SEO url best practices
We're revamping our site architecture and making several services pages that are accessible from one overarching service page. An example would be as follows: Services Student Services Essay editing Essay revision Author Services Book editing Manuscript critique We'll also be putting breadcrumbs throughout the site for easy navigation, however, is it imperative that we build the URLs that deep? For example, could we simply have www.site.com/essay-editing rather than www.site.com/services/students/essay-editing? I prefer the simplicity of the former, but I feel the latter may be more "search robot friendly" and better for SEO. Any advice on this is much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | Kibin0 -
Does PR actual mean anything?
My website is really ranking well, even product pages have a PR of 4. I ran the keyword analysis tool for the product page in question (which has a PR of 4) with the targeted keyword for the page which is currently ranking 8th (not so good) the keywords analysis tool give me some data back with the page authority being 1 and it also mentions that it has 0 page link root domains, however I know this is not true. I expected the page authority in seomoz to be higher than 1 due to it having a PR of 4, so how valuable is PR? does it even matter? Another thing I noticed is that the website above my listing have PR of 1 and 2. Looking forward to some feedback
Technical SEO | | Paul780 -
URL paths and keywords
I'm recommending some on-page optimization for a home builder building in several new home communities. The site has been through some changes in the past few months and we're almost starting over. The current URL structure is http://homebuilder.com/oakwood/features where homebuilder = builder name Oakwood Estates= name of community features = one of several sub-paths including site plan, elevations, floor plans, etc. The most attainable keyword phrases include the word 'home' and 'townname' I want to change the URL path to: http://homebuilder.com/oakwood-estates-townname-homes/features Is there any problem with doing this? It just seems to make a lot of sense. Any input would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | mikescotty0 -
Multiple URLs in CMS - duplicate content issue?
So about a month ago, we finally ported our site over to a content management system called Umbraco. Overall, it's okay, and certainly better than what we had before (i.e. nothing - just static pages). However, I did discover a problem with the URL management within the system. We had a number of pages that existed as follows: sparkenergy.com/state/name However, they exist now within certain folders, like so: sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/name So we had an aliasing system set up whereby you could call the URL basically whatever you want, so that allowed us to retain the old URL structure. However, we have found that the alias does not override, but just adds another option to finding a page. Which means the same pages can open under at least two different URLs, such as http://www.sparkenergy.com/state/texas and http://www.sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/texas. I've tried pointing to the aliased URL in other parts of the site with the rel canonical tag, without success. How much of a problem is this with respect to duplicate content? Should we bite the bullet, remove the aliased URLs and do 301s to the new folder structure?
Technical SEO | | ufmedia0 -
Directory URL structure last / in the url
Ok, So my site's urls works like this www.site.com/widgets/ If you go to www.site.com/widgets (without the last / ) you get a 404. My site did no used to require the last / to load the page but it has over the last year and my rankings have dropped on those pages... But Yahoo and BING still indexes all my pages without the last / and it some how still loads the page if you go to it from yahoo or bing, but it looks like this in the address bar once you arrive from bing or yahoo. http://www.site.com/404.asp?404;http://site.com:80/widgets/ How do I fix this? Should'nt all the engines see those pages the same way with the last / included? What is the best structure for SEO?
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820610
