Can I, in Google's good graces, check for Googlebot to turn on/off tracking parameters in URLs?
-
Basically, we use a number of parameters in our URLs for event tracking. Google could be crawling an infinite number of these URLs. I'm already using the canonical tag to point at the non-tracking versions of those URLs....that doesn't stop the crawling tho.
I want to know if I can do conditional 301s or just detect the user agent as a way to know when to NOT append those parameters.
Just trying to follow their guidelines about allowing bots to crawl w/out things like sessionID...but they don't tell you HOW to do this.
Thanks!
-
No problem Ashley!
It sounds like that would fall under cloaking, albeit pretty benign as far as cloaking goes. There's some more info here. The Matt Cutts video on that page has a lot of good information. Apparently any cloaking is against Google's guidelines. I would suspect you could get away with it, but I'd be worried everyday about a Google penalty getting handed down.
-
The syntax is correct. Assuming the site: and inurl: operators work in Bing, as they do in Google, then Bing is not indexing URLs with the parameters.
That article you've referred to only tells how to sniff out Google...one of a couple. What it doesn't tell me, unfortunately, is if there are any consequences of doing so and taking some kind of action...like shutting off the event tracking parameters in this case.
Just to be clear...thanks a bunch for helping out!
-
My sense from what you told me is that canonicals should be working in your case. What you're trying to use them for is what they're intended to do. You're sure the syntax is correct, and they're in the of the page or being set in the HTTP header?
Google does set it up so you can sniff out Googlebot and return different content (see here), but that would be unusual to do given the circumstances. I doubt you'd get penalized for cloaking for redirecting parameterized URLs to canonical ones for only Googlebot, but I'd still be nervous about doing it.
Just curious, is Bing respecting the canonicals?
-
Yeah, we can't noindex anything because there literally is NO way to crawl the site without picking up tracking parameters.
So we're saying that there is literally no good/approved way to say "oh look, it's google. let's make sure we don't put any of these params on the URL."? Is that the consensus?
-
If these duplicate pages have URLs that are appearing in search results, then the canonicals aren't working or Google just hasn't tried to reindex those pages yet. If the pages are duplicates, and you've set the canonical correctly, and entered them in Google Webmaster Tools, over time those pages should drop out of the index as Google reindexes them. You could try submitting a few of these URLs with parameters to Google to reindex manually in Google Webmaster Tools, and see if afterward they disappear from the results pages. If they do, then it's just a matter of waiting for Googlebot to find them all.
If that doesn't work, you could try something tricky like adding meta noindex tags to the pages with URL parameters, wait until they fall out of the index, and then add canonical tags back on, and see if those pages come back into the SERPs. If they do, then Google is ignoring your canonical tags. I hate to temporarily noindex any pages like this... but if they're all appearing separately in the SERPs anyhow, then they're not pooling their link juice properly anyway.
-
Thank you for your response. Even if I tell them that the parameters don't alter content, which I have, that doesn't stop how many pages google has to crawl. That's my main concern...that googlebot is spending too much time on these alternate URLs.
Plus there are millions of these param-laden URLs in the index, regardless of the canonical tag. There is currently no way for google to crawl the site without parameters that change constantly throughout each visit. This can't be optimal.
-
You're doing the right thing by adding canonicals to those pages. You can also go into Google Webmaster Tools and let them know that those URL parameters don't change the content of the pages. This really is the bread and butter of canonical tags. This is the problem they're supposed to solve.
I wouldn't sniff out Googlebot just to 301 those URLs with parameters to the canonical versions. The canonicals should be sufficient. If you do want to sniff out Googlebot, Google's directions are here. You don't do it by user agent, you do a reverse DNS lookup. Again, I would not do this in your case.
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
-
301 vs Canonical - With A Side of Partial URL Rewrite and Google URL Parameters-OH MY
Hi Everyone, I am in the middle of an SEO contract with a site that is partially HTML pages and the rest are PHP and part of an ecommerce system for digital delivery of college classes. I am working with a web developer that has worked with this site for many years. In the php pages, there are also 6 different parameters that are currently filtered by Google URL parameters in the old Google Search Console. When I came on board, part of the site was https and the remainder was not. Our first project was to move completely to https and it went well. 301 redirects were already in place from a few legacy sites they owned so the developer expanded the 301 redirects to move everything to https. Among those legacy sites is an old site that we don't want visible, but it is extensively linked to the new site and some of our top keywords are branded keywords that originated with that site. Developer says old site can go away, but people searching for it are still prevalent in search. Biggest part of this project is now to rewrite the dynamic urls of the product pages and the entry pages to the class pages. We attempted to use 301 redirects to redirect to the new url and prevent the draining of link juice. In the end, according to the developer, it just isn't going to be possible without losing all the existing link juice. So its lose all the link juice at once (a scary thought) or try canonicals. I am told canonicals would work - and we can switch to that. My questions are the following: 1. Does anyone know of a way that might make the 301's work with the URL rewrite? 2. With canonicals and Google parameters, are we safe to delete the parameters after we have ensures everything has a canonical url (parameter pages included)? 3. If we continue forward with 301's and lose all the existing links, since this only half of the pages in the site (if you don't count the parameter pages) and there are only a few links per page if that, how much of an impact would it have on the site and how can I avoid that impact? 4. Canonicals seem to be recommended heavily these days, would the canonical urls be a better way to go than sticking with 301's. Thank you all in advance for helping! I sincerely appreciate any insight you might have. Sue (aka Trudy)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TStorm1 -
Does anyone know how to appear with snippet that says something like: Jobs 1-10 of 80 in the beginning of the description on Google? e.g. like on: https://www.google.co.za/#q=pickers+and+packers
Does anyone know how to appear with snippet that says something like: Jobs 1-10 of 80 in the beginning of the description on Google? e.g. like on: https://www.google.co.za/#q=pickers+and+packers Any markup that could be used to be listed like this. Why is some sites listed like this and some not. Why is the adzuna.co.za page listed with Results 1-10 while some other with Jobs 1-10 ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | classifiedtech0 -
URL Parameter Being Improperly Crawled & Indexed by Google
Hi All, We just discovered that Google is indexing a subset of our URL’s embedded with our analytics tracking parameter. For the search “dresses” we are appearing in position 11 (page 2, rank 1) with the following URL: www.anthropologie.com/anthro/category/dresses/clothes-dresses.jsp?cm_mmc=Email--Anthro_12--070612_Dress_Anthro-_-shop You’ll note that “cm_mmc=Email” is appended. This is causing our analytics (CoreMetrics) to mis-attribute this traffic and revenue to Email vs. SEO. A few questions: 1) Why is this happening? This is an email from June 2012 and we don’t have an email specific landing page embedded with this parameter. Somehow Google found and indexed this page with these tracking parameters. Has anyone else seen something similar happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kevin_reyes
2) What is the recommended method of “politely” telling Google to index the version without the tracking parameters? Some thoughts on this:
a. Implement a self-referencing canonical on the page.
- This is done, but we have some technical issues with the canonical due to our ecommerce platform (ATG). Even though page source code looks correct, Googlebot is seeing the canonical with a JSession ID.
b. Resubmit both URL’s in WMT Fetch feature hoping that Google recognizes the canonical.
- We did this, but given the canonical issue it won’t be effective until we can fix it.
c. URL handling change in WMT
- We made this change, but it didn’t seem to fix the problem
d. 301 or No Index the version with the email tracking parameters
- This seems drastic and I’m concerned that we’d lose ranking on this very strategic keyword Thoughts? Thanks in advance, Kevin0 -
Site Structure: How do I deal with a great user experience that's not the best for Google's spiders?
We have ~3,000 photos that have all been tagged. We have a wonderful AJAXy interface for users where they can toggle all of these tags to find the exact set of photos they're looking for very quickly. We've also optimized a site structure for Google's benefit that gives each category a page. Each category page links to applicable album pages. Each album page links to individual photo pages. All pages have a good chunk of unique text. Now, for Google, the domain.com/photos index page should be a directory of sorts that links to each category page. Alternatively, the user would probably prefer the AJAXy interface. What is the best way to execute this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tatermarketing0 -
Google: How to See URLs Blocked by Robots?
Google Webmaster Tools says we have 17K out of 34K URLs that are blocked by our Robots.txt file. How can I see the URLs that are being blocked? Here's our Robots.txt file. User-agent: * Disallow: /swish.cgi Disallow: /demo Disallow: /reviews/review.php/new/ Disallow: /cgi-audiobooksonline/sb/order.cgi Disallow: /cgi-audiobooksonline/sb/productsearch.cgi Disallow: /cgi-audiobooksonline/sb/billing.cgi Disallow: /cgi-audiobooksonline/sb/inv.cgi Disallow: /cgi-audiobooksonline/sb/new_options.cgi Disallow: /cgi-audiobooksonline/sb/registration.cgi Disallow: /cgi-audiobooksonline/sb/tellfriend.cgi Disallow: /*?gdftrk Sitemap: http://www.audiobooksonline.com/google-sitemap.xml
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lbohen0 -
How to 301 redirect all URLs with /? in?
I want to redirect all URLs that have /? in it. Indexed in Google is a bunch of urls lik: mysite.com/?674764 mysite.com/?rtf8y78 I want all these URLs to be redirected to my home page. Any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnPeters0 -
Lots of incorrect urls indexed - Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site
Hi, Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Basically, our rankings and traffic etc have been dropping massively recently google sent us a message stating " Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site". This first highligted us to the problem that for some reason our eCommerce site has recently generated loads (potentially thousands) of rubbish urls hencing giving us duplication everywhere which google is obviously penalizing us with in the terms of rankings dropping etc etc. Our developer is trying to find the route cause of this but my concern is, How do we get rid of all these bogus urls ?. If we use GWT to remove urls it's going to take years. We have just amended our Robot txt file to exclude them going forward but they have already been indexed so I need to know do we put a redirect 301 on them and also a HTTP Code 404 to tell google they don't exist ? Do we also put a No Index on the pages or what . what is the best solution .? A couple of example of our problems are here : In Google type - site:bestathire.co.uk inurl:"br" You will see 107 results. This is one of many lot we need to get rid of. Also - site:bestathire.co.uk intitle:"All items from this hire company" Shows 25,300 indexed pages we need to get rid of Another thing to help tidy this mess up going forward is to improve on our pagination work. Our Site uses Rel=Next and Rel=Prev but no concanical. As a belt and braces approach, should we also put concanical tags on our category pages whereby there are more than 1 page. I was thinking of doing it on the Page 1 of our most important pages or the View all or both ?. Whats' the general consenus ? Any advice on both points greatly appreciated? thanks Sarah.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SarahCollins0 -
Have you ever seen this 404 error: 'www.mysite.com/Cached' in GWT?
Google webmaster tools just started showing some strange pages under "not found" crawl errors. www.mysite.com/Cached www.mysite.com/item-na... <--- with the three dots, INSTEAD of www.mysite.com/item-name/ I have just 301'd them for now, but is this a sign of a technical issue? The site is php/sql and I'm doing the URL rewrites/301s etc in .htaccess. Thanks! -Dan EDIT: Also, wanted to add, there is no 'linked to' page.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | evolvingSEO0