URL Masking or Cloaking?
-
Hi Guy's,
On our webshop we link from our menu to categories were we want to rank on in Google. Because the menu is sitewide i guess Google finds the categories in the menu important and meaby let them score better (onside links)
The problem that i'm facing with is that we make difference in Gender. In the menu we have: Man and Woman. Links from the menu go to: /categorie?gender=1/ and /category?gender=2/. But we don't want to score on gender but on the default URL.
For example:
- Focus keyword = Shoes
- Menu Man link: /shoes?gender=1
- Menu Woman link: /shoes?gender=2
But we only want to rank on /shoes/. But that URL is not placed in the menu. Every URL with: "?" has a follow noindex.
So i was thinking to make a link in the menu, on man and woman: /shoes/, but on mouse down (program it that way) ?=gender. Is this cloaking for Google?
What we also could do is make a canonical to the /shoes/ page. But i don't know if we get intern linking value on ?gender pages that have a canonical.
Hope it makes senses
Advises are also welcome, such as: Place al the default URL's in the footer.
-
That's true, they append parameters tracking where you came from, which looks like it can affect the navigation you're seeing on the left. They're making sure that Google doesn't get confused by using a canonical on their pages, like Mike, Eric and I have recommended.
-
This website is doing the same:
On the left filters... When you hover over a link it's different from the actual URL when visiting it.
-
Hi there,
Like Mike and Eric have said, I'd recommend using a canonical tag on the men's and women's pages to the version of the page that shows both genders' shoes/clothing.
That said, I just want to make sure this is the best path for your site. If it makes more sense for your site to point people to shoes and clothing by gender, shouldn't that be what you show in Google's search results? I'm a woman, and generally search for "women's shoes" since otherwise I often end up on pages that show men's options.
Let us know if these solutions work!
Kristina
-
So to clarify when you say "menu" are you talking about faceted navigation or are you talking about actual page navigation (near header/footer)? If it's faceted, then you should canonical back to the main page so you're not competing with other pages on your site (/mens-shoes or /womens-shoes). If you canonical the men's or women's page back to the main /shoes/ page then you will lose the benefit of those pages.
Does the site only work off of parameters, or do you have separate pages for different genders?
-
You might be better served by using a canonical to point the parameters to the base page. I.E. /shoes?gender=1 with a rel="canonical" pointing at "/shoes". Depends on the variety of the content of the pages, if you're cannibalizing your own keywords, etc.
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
-
Canonical tag On Each Page With Same Page URL - Its Harmful For SEO or Not?
Hi. I have an e-commerce project and they have canonical code in each and every page for it's own URL. (Canonical on Original Page No duplicate page) The url of my wesite is like this: "https://www.website.com/products/produt1"
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HuptechWebseo
and the site is having canonical code like this: " This is occurring in each and every products as well as every pages of my website. Now, my question is that "is it harmful for the SEO?" Or "should I remove this tags from all pages?" Is that any benefit for using the canonical tag for the same URL (Original URL)?0 -
Restructuring URLS - unsure if this falls on the spammy side of paths.
Hi all, I'm restructuring a site that has been built with no real structure. It's moving over to HTTPS and having a full new development so it's a good time to tackle it all together. It's a snowboard site and at the moment the courses, camps ect are all just as pages like: examplesnowboarding.com/off-piste-backcountry/ I'm wanting to tighten the structure so it gives more meaning to the pages and so I can style them selectively and make it easier for the client to manage but I'm worried repeating the word snowboard too often will look spammy. I'm wanting to do the following: URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-courses/splitboard-backcountry-intro/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | snowflake74
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-camps/technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-camps/girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-lessons/private/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-lessons/group/ The urls are clean and humanly descriptive but it does mean that the "snowboard" keyword is used a lot! The other 2 options I thought of were like so (including snowboard in the page name not path) URL - examplesnowboarding.com/courses/snowboard-splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/snowboard-technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/snowboard-girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/private-snowboard/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/group-snowboard/ or simply removing "snowboard" as "snowboarding" is already in the main url URL - examplesnowboarding.com/courses/splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/private/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/group/ Any thoughts appreciated!1 -
Traffic exchange referral URL's
We have a client who once per month is being hit by easyihts4u.com and it is creating huge increases in their referrals. All the hits go to one page specifically. From the research we have done, this site and others like it, are not spam bots. We cannot understand how they choose sites to target and what good it does for them, or our client to have hits all on one days to one page? We created a filter in analytics to create what we think is a more accurate reflection of traffic. Should be block them at the server level as well?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Teamzig0 -
Would reviews being served to a search engine user agent through a noscript tag (but not shown for other user types) be considered cloaking?
This one is tough, and I've asked it once here, http://www.quora.com/Search-Engine-Optimization-SEO/Is-having-rich-snippets-placed-below-a-review-that-is-pulled-via-javascript-considered-bad-grey-hat-SEO, but I feel that the response was sided with the company. As an SEO or digital marketer, it seems that if we are pulling in our reviews via iframe for our users, but serving them through a nonscript tag when the user agent is a search engine, that this could be considered cloaking. I understand that the "intent" may be to show the same thing to the bots as the user sees, but if you look at the view source, you'll never see the reviews, because it would only be delivered to the search engine bot. What do you think?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | eTundra0 -
Goddady's Domain Masking and 301's
I have a client who's 7 domains and single website (instantpages®) exists within the clutches of GoDaddy. They own 6 kewyord rich domain names that 301 redirect with masking to the main branded domain. In effect, what this provides is the ability to add a title tag and meta description for a keyword rich domain name that displays content through an iframe. So really it's not duplicate content but this practice sets off my spidey sense that this is not a best practice regarding SEO. I want to suggest for the client to drop the idea of masking and do a straight 301 redirect to main branded domain. I'm sure that is fine but these domains are Not similar variations but actually vary widely: massage-city.com, city-massage.com, city-acupuncture.com, acupuncture-city.com, city-chiropractic.com, chiropractic-city.com etc ---- Doesn't Google frown on redirecting 6 domains to a single domain if they vary widely? Words of wisdom appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | superZj0 -
Redirecting an image url to a more SEO friendly image url
We are currently trying to find the best way of making the images on one of our sites more SEO friendly, the easiest way for us would be to redirect the image URL to a more SEO friendly image URL. For example: http://www.website.com/default/cache/file/F8325DA-0A9A-437F-B5D0A4255A066261_medium.jpg redirects to http://www.website.com/default/cache/file/spiral-staircase.jpg Would Google frown upon this as it's saying the image is one thing and then points the user somewhere else?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RedAntSolutions0 -
Is there such thing as white hat cloaking?
We are near the end of a site redesign and come to find out its in javascript and not engine friendly. Our IT teams fix to this is show crawlable content to googlebot and others through the user agents. I told them this is cloaking and I'm not comfortable with this. They said after doing research, if the content is pretty much the same, it is an acceptable way to cloak. About 90% of the content will be the same between the "regular user" and content served to googlebot. Does anyone have any experience with this, are there any recent articles or any best practices on this? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CHECOM0