I just found something weird I can't explain, so maybe you guys can help me out.
-
I just found something weird I can't explain, so maybe you guys can help me out.
In Google http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&q=internet. The number 3 result is a big telecom provider in the Netherland called Ziggo. The ranking URL is https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/. However if you click on it you'll be directed to https://www.ziggo.nl/#producten/internet/
HttpFox in FF however is not showing any redirects. Just a 200 status code.
The URL https://www.ziggo.nl/#producten/internet/ contains a hash, so the canonical URL should be https://www.ziggo.nl/. I can understand that. But why is Google showing the title and description of https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/, when the canonical URL clearly is https://www.ziggo.nl/?
Can anyone confirm my guess that Google is using the bulk SEO value (link juice/authority) of the homepage at https://www.ziggo.nl/ because of the hash, but it's using the relevant content of https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/ resulting in a top position for the keyword "internet".
-
The site you've pointed to uses ajax to load its content. When the page loads there's a javascript snippet which takes over and adds the # to the page (hence why you're not seeing it as a httpd header). If you click on any other link you'll see that the base URL stays the same with some extra parameters on the end.
There are potential crawling issues with this and a number of fixes (some Google documentation here, although this isn't the fix that the site in question is using: http://code.google.com/intl/en-US/web/ajaxcrawling/).
So, in short, there's nothing fishy going on - it's just good old ajax content loading
- Matt
-
This is actually a fairly crude attempt of loading AJAX content. I say 'crude' because it's not quite using Google's documented AJAX protocol using the hashbang (#!). There was an SEOmoz post about Google's protocol a while back that had some good examples:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-allow-google-to-crawl-ajax-content
For this specific website, there actually is a JavaScript redirect involved. The original URL will load, then some JS will do some work and eventually do a document.location.replace() to do the redirect to the URL with the hash. As far as GoogleBot is concerned it won't necessarily do the redirect and will index the original page.
One thing I want to caution is to again remember that this site is not exactly adhering to Google's recommendations on AJAX content. Coupled with the fact that there is a JS redirect going on I would say that there might be a risk of cloaking. On the front end, the content looks the same and I would kinda hope that Google would just treat this scenario similar to their hashbang solution because this site is not intending to do some tricky stuff here. But we can't trust that Google will always give a free pass.
-
This looks more like a dynamic site using AJAX, rather than anchors in the page like you're thinking.
See: http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/getting-started.html
No funny stuff. The page you see is the page google intended to show you, with all the SEO value for the page itself being responsible for its spot in the SERPs.
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
-
Looks like keyword stuffing, but it isn't
(There was a similar older question on the forum, but it wasn't really answered so please forgive me if this looks like a repeated question) Looks like keyword stuffing, but it isn't We have a massive web store with 80k "commodity products" (and this amount will only increase) which aren't sold the same way normal products are sold (i.e. by brand and model). Commodity products are sold by specification, therefore their product names are actually descriptions of the product. In our case, industrial fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, screws, etc) sold in bulk. If you click on the link below, you will see that our catalog involves a tremendous amount of repetition, where the products all appear the same, but are varying by dimensions and/or package quantities. The solutions the web store software offers to solve this problem cause issues for us (i.e. displaying the dimensions and quantities ONLY under a common header) but more importantly, we are concerned that search engines are seeing this as keyword stuffing and penalizing the pages. http://www.aspenfasteners.com/Step-Bolts-Inch-Standard-s/407.htm If we can't change the presentation of the page, should we be concerned and if so, how do we let a search engine know that the repetition is legitimate?
Technical SEO | | AspenFasteners0 -
On our site by mistake some wrong links were entered and google crawled them. We have fixed those links. But they still show up in Not Found Errors. Should we just mark them as fixed? Or what is the best way to deal with them?
Some parameter was not sent. So the link was read as : null/city, null/country instead cityname/city
Technical SEO | | Lybrate06060 -
How to handle pages I can't delete?
Hello Mozzers, I am using wordpress and I have a small problem. I have two sites, I don't want but the dev of the theme told me I can't delete them. /portfolio-items/ /faq-items/ The dev said he can't find a way to delete it because these pages just list faqs/portfolio posts. I don't have any of these posts so basically what I have are two sites with just the title "Portfolio items" and "FAQ Items". Furthermore the dev said these sites are auto-generated so he can't find a way to remove them. I mean I don't believe that it's impossible, but if it is how should I handle them? They are indexed by search engines, should I remove them from the index and block them from robots.txt? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | grobro0 -
I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem." Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority." So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too 🙂 Dana
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Does Having Links on this blog Hurt or Help?
Hello, I created a wordpress blog a while back, http://plastic-bins.com/ If you go into one of the pages on the blog (for example: http://plastic-bins.com/plastic-shelf-bins/ ) you will notice a link after the text/content telling you where you can purchase the stuff that is talked about on that page. There is one link back to the e-commerce site on every category page on the blog. Does anyone know if these links will help me or hurt me in terms of ranking in the SERPS? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Prime850 -
I am getting an error message from Google Webmaster Tools and I don't know what to do to correct the problem
The message is:
Technical SEO | | whitegyr
"Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.whitegyr.com/, We've detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines. If you have any questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team" I have always tried to follow Google's guidelines and don't know what I am doing wrong, I have eight different websites all getting this warning and I don't know what is wrong, is there anyone you know that will look at my sites and advise me what I need to do to correct the problem? Website with this warning:
artistalaska.com
cosmeticshandbook.com
homewindpower.ws
montanalandsale.com
outdoorpizzaoven.net
shoes-place.com
silverstatepost.com
www.whitegyr.com0 -
What's the issue?
Hi, We have a client who dropped in the rankings (initially from bottom of the first page to page to page 3, and now page 5) for a single keyword (their most important one - targeted on their homepage) back in the middle of March. So far, we've found that the issue isn't the following: Keyword stuffing on the page External anchor text pointing to the page Internal anchor text pointing to the page In addition to the above, the drop didn't coincide with panda or penguin. Any other ideas as to what could cause such a drop for a single keyword (other related rankings haven't moved). We're starting to think that this may just have been another small change in the algorithm but it seems like too big of a drop in a short space of time for that to be the case. Any thoughts would be much appreciated! Thanks.
Technical SEO | | jasarrow0 -
How can I optimise for Google Products?
Has anyone got experience of optimising Google Products (Google Base) feeds? I've noticed that, although my site doesn't often appear on page one in the standard results, we occasionally appear right at the top because of the "universal" shopping results. My question is: how can we make this happen more often? There seems to be a lot less competition (presumably because our competitors haven't worked out how to provide the feed to Google yet!), so I imagine it should be easier and quicker to reach the top this way than any other way. Thanks! Alex
Technical SEO | | reddogmusic0