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
-
Can't support IE 7,8,9, 10\. Can we redirect them to another page that's optimized for those browsers so that we can have our site work on modern browers while still providing a destination of IE browsers?
Hi, Our site can't support IE 7,8,9, 10. Can we redirect them to another page that's optimized for those browsers so that we can have our site work on modern broswers while still providing a destination of IE browsers? Would their be an SEO penalty? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dspete0 -
What's the best way to A/B test new version of your website having different URL structure?
Hi Mozzers, Hope you're doing good. Well, we have a website, up and running for a decent tenure with millions of pages indexed in search engines. We're planning to go live with a new version of it i.e a new experience for our users, some changes in site architecture which includes change in URL structure for existing URLs and introduction of some new URLs as well. Now, my question is, what's the best way to do a A/B test with the new version? We can't launch it for a part of users (say, we'll make it live for 50% of the users, an remaining 50% of the users will see old/existing site only) because the URL structure is changed now and bots will get confused if they start landing on different versions. Will this work if I reduce crawl rate to ZERO during this A/B tenure? How will this impact us from SEO perspective? How will those old to new 301 URL redirects will affect our users? Have you ever faced/handled this kind of scenario? If yes, please share how you handled this along with the impact. If this is something new to you, would love to know your recommendations before taking the final call on this. Note: We're taking care of all existing URLs, properly 301 redirecting them to their newer versions but there are some new URLs which are supported only on newer version (architectural changes I mentioned above), and these URLs aren't backward compatible, can't redirect them to a valid URL on old version.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | _nitman0 -
Can you nofollow a URL?
Hey Moz Community, My questions sounds pretty simple but unfortunately, it isn't. I have a domain name (we'll use example.com for this) http://example.com which 301 re-directs to http://www.example.com. http://example.com has bad links pointing to it and http://www.example.com does not. So essentially, I want to stop negative influences from http://example.com being passed on to http://www.example.com. A 302 re-direct sounds like it would work in theory but is this the best way to go about this? Just so you know, we have completed a reconsideration request a long time ago but I think the bad links are still negatively affecting the website as it does not rank for it's own name which is bizarre. Actual Question: How do I re-direct http://example.com to http://www.example.com without passing on the negative SEO attached to http://example.com? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RiceMedia0 -
Site's disappearnce in web rankings
I'm currently doing some work on a website: http://www.abetterdriveway.com.au. Upon starting, I detected a lot of spammy links going to this website and sort to remove them before submitting a disavow report. A few months later, this site completely disappeared in the rankings, with all keywords suddenly not ranked. I realised that the test website (which was put up to view before the new site went live) was still up on another URL and Google was suddenly ranking that site instead. Hence, I ensured that test site was completely removed. 3 weeks later however, the site (www.abetterdriveway.com.au) still remains unranked for its keywords. Upon checking Web Master Tools, I cannot see anything that stands out. There is no manual action or crawling issues that I can detect. Would anyone know the reason for this persistent disappearance? Is it something I will just have to wait out until ranking results come back, or is there something I am missing? Help here would be much appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gavo0 -
Which is better /section/ or section/index.php?
I have noticed that Google has started to simply link to /section/ as opposed to /section/index.php and I haven't changed any canonical tags etc. I have looked at my pages moz authority for the two /section/ = 28/100
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TimHolmes
/section/index.php = 42/100 How would I go about transferring the authority to /section/ from /section/index.php to hopefully help me in my organic serp positions etc. Any insight would be great 🐵0 -
Don't affiliate programs have an unfair impact on a company's ability to compete with bigger businesses?
So many coupon sites and other websites these days will only link to your website if you have a relationship with Commission Junction or one of the other large affiliate networks. It seems to me that links on these sites are really unfair as they allow businesses with deep pockets to acquire links unequitably. To me it seems like these are "paid links", as the average website cannot afford the cost of running an affiliate program. Even worse, the only reason why these businesses are earning a link is because they have an affiliate program; that to me should violate some sort of Google rule about types and values of links. The existence of an affiliate program as the only reason for earning a link is preposterous. It's just as bad as paid link directories that have no editorial standards. I realize the affiliate links are wrapped in CJ's code, so that mush diminish the value of the link, but there is still tons of good value in having the brand linked to from these high authority sites.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | williamelward0 -
Posing QU's on Google Variables "aclk", "gclid" "cd", "/aclk" "/search", "/url" etc
I've been doing a bit of stats research prompted by read the recent ranking blog http://www.seomoz.org/blog/gettings-rankings-into-ga-using-custom-variables There are a few things that have come up in my research that I'd like to clear up. The below analysis has been done on my "conversions". 1/. What does "/aclk" mean in the Referrer URL? I have noticed a strong correlation between this and "gclid" in the landing page variable. Does it mean "ad click" ?? Although they seem to "closely" correlate they don't exactly, so when I have /aclk in the referrer Url MOSTLY I have gclid in the landing page URL. BUT not always, and the same applies vice versa. It's pretty vital that I know what is the best way to monitor adwords PPC, so what is the best variable to go on? - Currently I am using "gclid", but I have about 25% extra referral URL's with /aclk in that dont have "gclid" in - so am I underestimating my number of PPC conversions? 2/. The use of the variable "cd" is great, but it is not always present. I have noticed that 99% of my google "Referrer URL's" either start with:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
/aclk - No cd value
/search - No cd value
/url - Always contains the cd variable. What do I make of this?? Thanks for the help in advance!0 -
Google swapped our website's long standing ranking home page for a less authoritative product page?
Our website has ranked for two variations of a keyword, one singular & the other plural in Google at #1 & #2 (for over a year). Keep in mind both links in serps were pointed to our home page. This year we targeted both variations of the keyword in PPC to a products landing page(still relevant to the keywords) within our website. After about 6 weeks, Google swapped out the long standing ranked home page links (p.a. 55) rank #1,2 with the ppc directed product page links (p.a. 01) and dropped us to #2 & #8 respectively in search results for the singular and plural version of the keyword. Would you consider this swapping of pages temporary, if the volume of traffic slowed on our product page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JingShack0