Does "seomoz.org" lose LJ when someone use "seomoz.COM" as the link site?
-
thanks...or does the 301 solve the issue 100%?
-
I stated, the path with upper case was a canonical isssues, not the domain name, you suggested i was confused or mistaken.
i was not canfused or mistaken, I think it is pretty plain you were
-
Alan, I am at a loss here. I don't know what words or combination of words I can type to help you.
The original Q&A asked about a domain URL specifically. For an unknown reason you chose to bring up the folder path portion of the URL which I agree uses a different set of case sensitive rules. All of my comments are directed at the base domain URL which I have expressly and repeatedly shared.
At this point I have done all I can here and I will let this topic go. If you disagree with any portion, that is perfectly ok.
Best Regards
-
Well in this case there is not much to disagree on.
we can test it
Lynux server
https://www.linux.com/learn/docs 200 OK
https://www.linux.com/learn/DOCS 404 Page doe not exist , does not resolve to lower case
Windows server
http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster/ 200 OK
http://www.bing.com/toolbox/WEBMASER/ 200 OK does not resolve to lower caseWindows server with 301 redirect (my server I have 301 to lowercase)
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-issues-involving-the-upper-and-lower-case 200 OK
http://perthseocompany.com.au/SEO/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-issues-involving-the-upper-and-lower-case 301 permanent redirect , resolves only because of a 301 redirect -
My original reply was going to be....we will have to agree to disagree. I should have stuck to that reply. This issue is not related to the original Q&A anyway. My apologies for allowing the convo to move in this direction.
As for the camelCase example, no it would not resolve unless you 301 it, it would lead to canonical issues (assuming you are talking of path not domain)
The original Q&A only asked about the domain name. I am not sure why you ever brought up the deeper URL path as it seems completely unrelated to the question. My responses were applicable to the domain name itself as I indicated.
Camel case in the domain name is perfectly acceptable and does not case any issues.
-
As for the camelCase example, no it would not resolve unless you 301 it, it would lead to canonical issues (assuming you are talking of path not domain)
IIS servers have a built in url-rewrite template you can use to correct this.
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-issues-involving-the-upper-and-lower-case -
I said "(disregarding domain name), " meaning the path
Read first post
“I am not sure about the actual domain name as it seems to give a 200 OK status for seomoz.ORG but resolves to seomoz.org”Meaning that’s fine, because it resolved
“But try changing the path “to does-seomoz-ORG-lose-…””
You will see that you still get the 200 OK status but does not resolve to ”does-seomoz-org-lose-…”
search engines will see this as 2 different URL’s, really it should 301 to lower case
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo... “Meaning it is not ok
Domain seems to not be a problem, but path is.The link you posted is confirms what I said, at least with windows servers (As I have always worked with Microsoft technologies)
With lynx the problem is worse because it 404’s , this is something I did not know. This would explain the /q/ in the path 404ing if you capitalize it. The rest of the path acts like a windows server (does not 404), I assume this is because of some URL-rewriting.
But the point is UPERCASE in the path will cause a canonical issue. The same conclusion as Ann SmartyI say it SEEMS to be ok for domain name, because I believe it is ok I don’t really know how it resolves, I also notice that Ann Smarty also is ambiguous as for domain name.
-
I believe you are confused or mistaken Alan.
To the best of my knowledge, it makes absolutely no difference to anything related to Google whether any letters are capitalized in a domain name. In 100% of cases, Google will show the domain name of an organic search result in lower case.
Some support on this statement: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/url-capitalization-and-seo/12667/
I have personally used websites where internal links always used camel-case, but Google still displayed the URL as lower-case. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. I would love to learn a bit and update my knowledge.
-
Well depends on what you mean by case sensitive, the url will work, but it will be seen as 2 separate Url’s to search engines if you use upper case or not(disregarding domain name) , to me case sensitive means it will 404. That is why I pointed out that the “/q/ “ is truly case sensitive, if you change it to /Q/ it will 404
Case sensitive in programming languages means how you compare, Binary or TextIn text Q= q
In binary Q<>q
as they have different binary numbers, the q in the path of this post is probably used in a binary compare and is case sensitive, the rest of the path is not case sensitive.
-
I agree with Phillip as well.
A 301 redirect is designed to redirect the user from the old URL to the new one. When the redirect occurs, an estimated 1 - 10% of link juice is lost. This loss is by design and will always occur on any form of redirect. The loss is amplified when multiple redirects occur. A good short video on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lVPrYoBkA
I believe Anthony only capitalized the .COM for emphasis. It is true the folder and file portions of a URL are case sensitive, the domain name is not. You can visit any URL on the internet via any form of capitalization of it's domain name. www.seomoz.org = wWw.SeOmoz.ORG.
-
Philip is correct, they will lose link juice thought a 301 from com to org
but it goes further then that as you used uppercase letters. I am not sure about the actual domain name as it seems to give a 200 OK status for seomoz.ORG but resolves to seomoz.org
But try changing the path “to does-seomoz-ORG-lose-…”
You will see that you still get the 200 OK status but does not resolve to ”does-seomoz-org-lose-…”
search engines will see this as 2 different URL’s, really it should 301 to lower case
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-multiple-canonical-formats
Something else I noticed was the /q/ in the path, if you change that to /Q/ you get a 404, this would be because of some code they have comparing the q as binary and not text I suggest -
A 301 redirect causes a link to lose as much as 10% of its link juice so SEOMoz doesn't quite get as much, but they still get the vast majority of it.
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
-
Breaking up a site into multiple sites
Hi, I am working on plan to divide up mid-number DA website into multiple sites. So the current site's content will be divided up among these new sites. We can't share anything going forward because each site will be independent. The current homepage will change to just link out to the new sites and have minimal content. I am thinking the websites will take a hit in rankings but I don't know how much and how long the drop will last. I know if you redirect an entire domain to a new domain the impact is negligible but in this case I'm only redirecting parts of a site to a new domain. Say we rank #1 for "blue widget" on the current site. That page is going to be redirected to new site and new domain. How much of a drop can we expect? How hard will it be to rank for other new keywords say "purple widget" that we don't have now? How much link juice can i expect to pass from current website to new websites? Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | timdavis0 -
Site appears with ".com" but not without it
Hi, When I search for my site www.docslinc.com as "docslinc.com" the results on the SERPS have the home page and the site map but not the other indexed pages. The other issue occurs when I search for the company name alone "docslinc", the homepage does not show up at all, and some of the other pages show up. I have looked all over the place and cannot find an answer. I have checked the onsite optimization and it all seems to be correct. Any suggestions would be amazing. Thanks, zulumanf
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zulumanf0 -
Would be the network site map page considered link spam
In the course of the last 18 months my sites have lost from 50 to 70 percent of traffic. Never have used any tricks, just simple white-hat SEO. Anyway, I am now trying to fix things that hadn't been a problem before all those Google updates, but apparently now are. Would appreciate any help.. I used to have a network site map page on everyone of my sites (about 30 sites). It basically would be a page called 'our network' and it'll show a list of links to all of my other sites. These pages were indexed, had decent PR and didn't seem to cause any problem. Here's an example of one of them:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | romanbond
http://www.psoriasisguide.ca/psoriasis_scg.html In the light of Panda and Penguin and all these 'bad links' I decided to get rid of most of them. My traffic didn't recover at all, it actually went further down. Not sure if there is any connection to what I'd done. So, the question is: In your opinion/experience, do you think such network sitemap pages could be causing penalties for link spam?0 -
How do I best handle Duplicate Content on an IIS site using 301 redirects?
The crawl report for a site indicates the existence of both www and non-www content, which I am aware is duplicate. However, only the www pages are indexed**, which is throwing me off. There are not any 'no-index' tags on the non-www pages and nothing in robots.txt and I can't find a sitemap. I believe a 301 redirect from the non-www pages is what is in order. Is this accurate? I believe the site is built using asp.net on IIS as the pages end in .asp. (not very familiar to me) There are multiple versions of the homepage, including 'index.html' and 'default.asp.' Meta refresh tags are being used to point to 'default.asp'. What has been done: 1. I set the preferred domain to 'www' in Google's Webmaster Tools, as most links already point to www. 2. The Wordpress blog which sits in a /blog subdirectory has been set with rel="canonical" to point to the www version. What I have asked the programmer to do: 1. Add 301 redirects from the non-www pages to the www pages. 2. Set all versions of the homepage to redirect to www.site.org using 301 redirects as opposed to meta refresh tags. Have all bases been covered correctly? One more concern: I notice the canonical tags in the source code of the blog use a trailing slash - will this create a problem of inconsistency? (And why is rel="canonical" the standard for Wordpress SEO plugins while 301 redirects are preferred for SEO?) Thanks a million! **To clarify regarding the indexation of non-www pages: A search for 'site:site.org -inurl:www' returns only 7 pages without www which are all blog pages without content (Code 200, not 404 - maybe deleted or moved - which is perhaps another 301 redirect issue).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kimmiedawn0 -
SEO Link on Clients Site
Hey SEOMozzers, Quick question. In light of the possible 'over-optimisation' penalties pending from Google should we be looking to remove the SEO links to our site from our Clients websites? I appreciate that including a link to our site from an anchor text that includes 'SEO' in it may be like waving a flag to Search Engines saying we are carrying out SEO on our Clients sites. Obviously we would sooner risk a drop in our SEO keyword rankings than risk a penalty of any kind for our Clients. What is the recommended practice here?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MiroAsh0 -
Can I reduce number of on page links by just adding "no follow" tags to duplicate links
Our site works on templates and we essentially have a link pointing to the same place 3 times on most pages. The links are images not text. We are over 100 links on our on page attributes, and ranking fairly well for key SERPS our core pages are optimized for. I am thinking I should engage in some on-page link juice sculpting and add some "no follow" tags to 2 of the 3 repeated links. Although that being said the Moz's on page optimizer is not saying I have link cannibalization. Any thoughts guys? Hope this scenario makes sense.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robertrRSwalters0 -
Where does "Pages Similar" link text come from?
When I type in a competitor name (in this case "buycostumes") Google shows several related websites in it's "Pages Similar to..." section at the bottom of the page: My question, can anyone tell me where the text comes from that Google uses as the link. Our competitors have nice branded links and our is just a keyword. I can find nothing on-page that Google is using so it must be coming from someplace off-page, but where?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | costume0 -
Am I losing link juice with 302-redirected faceted navigation?
My site has faceted navigation that allows shoppers to filter category page results by things brand, size, price range, etc. These pages 302 redirect to the same page they came from, which already include canonical meta tags. I added the rel="nofollow" attribute to the facet links and added the line "Disallow: /category_filter/" to robots.txt. One of our SEO consultants told me that this is likely diluting the potency of the page's link juice since they are divided among all the page's links, including the links I am instructing crawlers to disregard. Can anybody tell me whether I am following the best practices for links that redirect to the same page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TahoeMountain400