URLs contains other language than English
-
I am in need of your advice in regards to urls of my new sites. I have got one site from gulf region site is in English and Arabic language. The issue is we are getting url from both. Some are Arabic, do you guys think it will effect the ranking result?
url example is : www.mydomain.com/بيع-بي-سيارة
-
Hey there
To Quote Google on this, with the issue of ASCII and UTF encoded characters, like Arabic:
"Yes, we can generally keep up with UTF-8 encoded URLs and we’ll generally show them to users in our search results (but link to your server with the URLs properly escaped). I would recommend that you also use escaped URLs in your links, to make sure that your site is compatible with older browsers that don’t understand straight UTF-8 URLs"
So their recommendation would be to have both URLs available (the English and the Arabic) in order to support all users. So the fact you already do this is a good thing.
The next step would be to make sure you are handling duplicate content correctly. If the Arabic and non Arabic URLs are linking to a page with the same content - Google _should_be able to recognise this as the same page and not penalise you for duplications. So if the Arabic URL and the "escaped URL" (ASCII/English equivalent) both go to the same page, you should be fine. I've experienced this quite a few times with Turkish websites, for example, that also have UTF encoded characters.
However, you can eliminate the risk further by adding a canonical tag to each page. As far as I am aware, the canonical tag will support Arabic characters and so, on each page of the site, add a canonical tag that points to that page. For example, with the URL above, you would want to place a canonical tag like:
You can read more on canonical tags here: http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization
Do be aware that for XML sitemaps, the URLs in the sitemap need to be URL-escaped - that is to say, UTF encoded URLs need to be made into their ASCII equivalent. You can read more about that in this Google guide to using non-alphanumeric characters in Sitemap URLs.
Hope this helps.
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
-
Should we include URLs with parameters in the sitemap?
Hi, I wanted to know whether we can include URLs with search parameters in the sitemap. Currently, we are trying to append structured data for our job listing page. There happens to be a large number of job listings around 1000 pages with unique job-id and location. Should we add these pages in the sitemap or is there any other solution to this? Regards, Tejas
Algorithm Updates | | tejasbansode0 -
Without slash URLs not redirected with slash URLs; but canonicalised: Any potential harm at Google?
Hi friends, Our website pages without slash are not redirecting to with slash and vice-versa. Both the versions are returning 200 response code. Both the versions are pointed to with slash URLs with rel-canonical tags. Is this right setup? Or we need to redirect one another to slash or without slash versions? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Anchor name URLs & anchor blocks: how Google sees them?
Hi guys, Anchor name URLs & anchor blocks: how Google sees them? As far as I know Google hasn't ever recommended anchor name URLs and anchor blocks, mostly when you have one page site, but I have ran into an organic result with an hyper-link to an anchor name URL. anchor name link There is a proper link and there aren't on the page and the code the words "Jump to". It means Google has put those words there and it has also taken the header of that block as anchor text. Why has Google placed that link? The query is "faqs umbrella company", so I thought that Google has seen "faqs umbrella company" like "what is the most popular faq about umbrella companies?" and therefore perhaps the correct answer could be "Is an umbrella company the only option I have? What are the alternatives?". Although, IMHO the most popular FAQ on Umbrella Companies should always be "what is an umbrella company". Unfortunately, that page is only worthy of third Google organic result page and there is no hint of rich snippet or any kind of conversational/KBT optimisation on its source code. no-rich-snippet Someone has any idea of why Google shows that link and if it's something that we can optimise in our pages? Cheers Pierpaolo IhwGwkb.jpg VWORt5F.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | madcow780 -
Canonical URl
Hello, All the pages of my site contained canonical url it shows me in the source, but on seomoz site it shows error that some the pages not containing canonical urls, anyone will help me ??
Algorithm Updates | | KLLC0 -
Regarding site url structure
OK so there are already some answers to questions similar to this but mine might be a little more specific. OK website is www.bestlifeint.com Most of our product pages are as such: http://www.bestlifeint.com/products-soy.html for instance. However I was trying to help the SEO for certain pages (namely two) with the URL's and had some success with another page our Soy Meal Replacement I changed the site URL of this page from www.bestlifeint.com/products-meal to www.bestlifeint.com/Soy-Amazing-Meal-Replacement-with-Omega-3s.html (notice I dropped the /product part of url and made it more seo friendly. The old page for this page was something like www.bestlifeint.com/products-meal The issue is that recently this new page and another page I have changed http://www.bestlifeint.com/Whey-Milk-Alternative.html I have dropped the "/product" on the URL even though they are both products. The new Meal Replacement page used to be ranked like 6th on google at the begining of the month and now is like 48th or something. The new "whey milk" page (http://www.bestlifeint.com/Whey-Milk-Alternative.html) is ranked like 45th or something for "Whey Milk" when the old page...."products/wheyrice.html" was ranked around 18th or so at the begining of the month. Have I hurt these two pages by not following www.bestlifeint.com/product.... site structure? And focusing more on the URL SEO? I have both NEW pages receiving all link juice inside web site so they are the new pages (can not go to old page) and recently seeing that google has pretty much dropped the old pages in search rankings I have deleted these two pages. Do i just need to just wait and see? According to my research we should rank much higher for "Whey Milk" we should be on the first page according to googles own statements of searchers finding good relevant material. Any advice moving forward? Thanks, Brian
Algorithm Updates | | SammisBest0 -
Why does Google say they have more URLs indexed for my site than they really do?
When I do a site search with Google (i.e. site:www.mysite.com), Google reports "About 7,500 results" -- but when I click through to the end of the results and choose to include omitted results, Google really has only 210 results for my site. I had an issue months back with a large # of URLs being indexed because of query strings and some other non-optimized technicalities - at that time I could see that Google really had indexed all of those URLs - but I've since implemented canonical URLs and fixed most (if not all) of my technical issues in order to get our index count down. At first I thought it would just be a matter of time for them to reconcile this, perhaps they were looking at cached data or something, but it's been months and the "About 7,500 results" just won't change even though the actual pages indexed keeps dropping! Does anyone know why Google would be still reporting a high index count, which doesn't actually reflect what is currently indexed? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | CassisGroup0 -
Any ideas on how Google +1 handles URLs and canonicals?
If your URL string shows up in a search and they +1 the URL with the coding in it will the +1 transfer to the canonical page? Example: site.com/locations/arizona/?utm_source=go gets a Google +1 from a user. The page itself has a canonical for site.com/locations/arizona/ Does google credit the canonical with the +1 or do they then have dup pages with separate +1 scores?
Algorithm Updates | | Thos0030 -
Local SEO url format & structure: ".com/albany-tummy-tuck" vs ".com/tummy-tuck" vs ".com/procedures/tummy-tuck-albany-ny" etc."
We have a relatively new site (re: August '10) for a plastic surgeon who opened his own solo practice after 25+ years with a large group. Our current url structure goes 3 folders deep to arrive at our tummy tuck procedure landing page. The site architecture is solid and each plastic surgery procedure page (e.g. rhinoplasty, liposuction, facelift, etc.) is no more than a couple clicks away. So far, so good - but given all that is known about local seo (which is a very different beast than national seo) quite a bit of on-page/architecture work can still be done to further improve our local rank. So here a a couple big questions facing us at present: First, regarding format, is it a given that using geo keywords within the url indispustibly and dramatically impacts a site's local rank for the better (e.g. the #2 result for "tummy tuck" and its SHENANIGANS level use of "NYC", "Manhattan", "newyorkcity" etc.)? Assuming that it is, would we be better off updating our cosmetic procedure landing page urls to "/albany-tummy-tuck" or "/albany-ny-tummy-tuck" or "/tummy-tuck-albany" etc.? Second, regarding structure, would we be better off locating every procedure page within the root directory (re: "/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/") or within each procedure's proper parent category (re: "/facial-rejuvenation/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/")? From what I've read within the SEOmoz Q&A, adding that parent category (e.g. "/breast-enhancement/breast-lift") is better than having every link in the root (i.e. completely flat). Third, how long before google updates their algorithm so that geo-optimized urls like http://www.kolkermd.com/newyorkplasticsurgeon/tummytucknewyorkcity.htm don't beat other sites who do not optimize so aggressively or local? Fourth, assuming that each cosmetic procedure page will eventually have strong link profiles (via diligent, long term link building efforts), is it possible that geo-targeted urls will negatively impact our ability to rank for regional or less geo-specific searches? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | WDeLuca0