Custom Landing Page URLs
-
I will begin creating custom landing pages optimized for long-tail keywords. Placing the keywords in the URL is obviously important -- Question: would it be detrimental to rankings to have extra characters extending past the keyword?
I'm not able to use tracking code, but need to put an identifier in the URL (clp = custom landing page).
For example, is
"www.domain.com/silver-fish.html"
going to perform meaningfully better than
"www.domain.com/silver-fish-clp.html"
for the kw phrase "silver fish"?
There will obviously be a lot of on-page optimization in addition to just structuring the URLs.
Thank you.
SIMbiz
-
It's a complicated issue, but adding 50K variations to 27K product pages can definitely be dangerous, especially post-Panda. At best, you're diluting your index and your ranking ability. At worst, Google could actually start de-indexing or at least devaluing core pages. Personally, I don't think the long-tail gains are worth the risk - these kinds of pages were behind the "May Day" update in 2010, and Panda continued that core philosophy. Google considers it a low-value tactic in 2012 - of that, I have no doubt at all.
Of course, it does depend on how you use them. To have custom landers for PPC and not index them is perfectly fine, for example. If you're tripling your indexed page count with thin content just to target SEO keywords, though, you're taking a very real risk, IMO.
-
Thanks for the great advice. However, now I'm becoming even more concerned about dynamically generated custom landing pages.
We are an ecommerce company selling product, and we have about 27k items and another 5k or so of content pages, not to mention 10k product reviews on the subdomain "reviews.domain.com" which are intended to do double-duty as SEO-targeted custom landing pages.
A third-party site-search provider as an add-on service is creating custom pages based on natural search queries that bring users to our site. For example, if a user searches for the term "big-toed troll t-shirt," a page would be generated on a subdomain that would look like "subdomain.domain.com/big-toed-toll-t-shirt.html." The page would include a list of related items that are derived from a search query and internal linking across the the included items. There are other on-page optimizations based on the KW phrase.
These pages are driving traffic, but I am concerned about cannibalization and other issues. To date, there have been something like 50K of these pages created.
Is this dangerous? I have more than 70 employees to support and I don't want to make a bonehead move that could put their jobs at risk.
Thanks.
SIMBiz
-
First off, a slight word of warning. When you spin out the custom landing pages, make sure they have unique content and don't do it in large numbers. It used to be that these kind of long-tail, keyword-targeted pages could help SEO (or, at worst, not hurt it). Since Panda and Google's attack on thin content over the past couple of years, these pages can actually cause you SEO harm. It depends a lot on the quantity and quality, of course. If you spin out 500 pages on a 50 page site just to target a bunch of keywords, and those pages only differ by a sentence or a few words, you're going to do more harm than good.
I doubt the two URLs you list would be much different. Theoretically, the shorter URL will focus more keyword power on "silver fish", but URL keywords are just one, relatively weak ranking factor, and you're talking about 4 characters.
You could use a hash-tag style URL, like:
www.domain.com/silver-fish.html#clp
I think those characers would be ignored by Google. Unfortunately, you'd have to modify your analytics to read them (as they'll be ignored by most analytics packages, too). Here's an article on how to do it in GA:
http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/how-to-track-clicks-on-anchors-in-google-analytics.html
That's a pretty technical feat for something that I doubt would have much impact, though.
-
Good Evening SIMbiz! That's a really interesting question. I would imagine the closer the URL to exact keyword match, the better. However a couple extra characters should not be too detrimental, especially if those extra characters are a nonsensical string of letters or a short string of numbers. One issue I've run into in the past, which you're probably way smarter and would never do something like this, is the creation of very similar (aka duplicate) content pages as a means to have a static page for each unique referrer site. Later to learn how to clean up the link juice cannibalization with canonicalization. For which I found this page very handy: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/canonicalization -- Hope it helps. Best, Evan
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
-
Hi i have a few pages with duplicate content but we've added canonical urls to them, but i need help understanding what going on
hi google is seeing many of our pages and dupliates but they have canonical url on there https://www.hijabgem.com/index.php/maxi-shirt-dress.html has tags https://www.hijabgem.com/maxi-shirt-dress.html
On-Page Optimization | | hijabgem
has tagshttps://www.hijabgem.com/index.php/quickview/index/view/id/4693
has tags
my question is which page takes authority?and are they setup correct, can you have more than one link rel="canonical" on one page?0 -
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
On-Page Optimization | | Jacksons_Fencing0 -
Can bad text URLs hurt pages?
If you have some pages that contain plain text URLs (not anchored links) that used to be good URLs, but are now bad, either because the website shut down or because it has been acquired by someone else and is now parked (or worse) - are those URLs enough to cause quality problems? For example: This information was brought to you by Waymaker http://www.waymaker.net These aren't the only ones. And yes, I know I should fix them, but there are probably 10,000 pages like it. I will fix them, but its not something I can do in a few minutes. (this one is easy to fix programmatically, but others are a lot more complex) So my question is: do you have actual experience that these are bad enough to cause ranking problems (making them low quality)
On-Page Optimization | | loopyal0 -
Ranking for specific pages
HI, Lets say my website is abc.com and my targeted keyword is abc for index page. Internal pages, like abc.com/apple.htm, abc.com/banana.htm. The targeted keyword for apple.htm is fresh apples, buy apples, and for banana.htm, fresh banana, buy banana. How to define these keywords in the campaign. Please suggest. Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | younus0 -
How could I avoid the "Duplicate Page Content" issue on the search result pages of a webshop site?
My webshop site was just crawled by Roger, and it found 683 "Duplicate Page Content" issues. Most of them are result pages of different product searches, that are not really identical, but very similar to each other. Do I have to worry about this? If yes, how could I make the search result pages different? IS there any solution for this? Thanks: Zoltan
On-Page Optimization | | csajbokz0 -
Keyword Landing Page Transition
We are redesigning the site to launch soon. We are a manufacturer. Our most valuable keyword currently ranks around 8th on Google in a competitive market and responds with a link to our product selection page as the landing URL. This link / URL is currently listed on every site page in a right column menu with the keyword as the anchor text. My concern is that I have redesigned this product selection page, and would like to change its file name to include the keyword as well as use the same keyword anchor text. And to complicate the matter, for political reasons my boss has asked me to consider keeping the old product page available to alleviate board concern (not rational, but may be required). Since the old page shows similar information to the new selection page, if I keep it, I am considering calling it a "Visual Selector" as opposed to the "Product Selector" menu name for the new page. I will list both in a list under the keyword product name on the home page menu and then drop the old selector page link on all other pages to lower visitor confusion. So the alternative choices to proceed are as follows: 1. Keep old and new product selection pages a. Show both on all page menus (Keeps the old page visible to Google, duplicating the current presentation for current keyword landing page) b. Only show old product page on home page menu to alleviate the Board concerns (Keeps the old page visible to Google, but with one link) 2. Get rid of the old product page and redirect URL to new one (our primary keyword would be ranked on its own merit and the current Google ranked page would redirect to the new one) Number 2 is the logical method for users, but I am nervous about dropping and/or redirecting the current landing page which ranks my best keyword at 8th in a competitive market. Your recommendations or comments? What do you predict Google will do in these three scenarios? Hope you can follow this maze... Thanks! George
On-Page Optimization | | rhawk0 -
Url question for seo
Would it be beneficial to use url that is a match for my keyword to help with seo, then have my currently url forward to that one so I don't have to change any marketing materials? I was one of the feedback that I got when doing the on page keyword optimization tool on seo moz. Thanks J
On-Page Optimization | | fertilityhealth0 -
How many urls per page is to many
I know it used to be 100 urls per page, but recently Matt cutts has said that they can count a lot more now. I was wonder what you guys thought was how many was to many per page?
On-Page Optimization | | Gordian0