Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
-
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture.
The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the
Home Page - Converse.com
Marimekko category page (flash version)
http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko
Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled)
http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko
Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes
http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php
The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google.
When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page.
-----
Marimekko - Converse
All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ...
www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached
So my issues are…
Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages?
Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages?
Any recommendations on to what to do about this?
Thanks,
SEOsurfer
-
Tom,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the site and giving a detailed response. I’ve been doing some research myself and my findings mirror your assessment. Thank you for recommended action items too. Converse uses http://www.asual.com/swfaddress/ which is a good site experience but as you pointed out not so hot for SEO.
--SEOsurfer
-
Great question!
Firstly - unfortunately, Steve's suggestion isn't going to be viable for you. The # portion of the URL is not available to your code server-side, so you won't be able to determine where the rel canonical should point.
Furthermore, if they are committed to keeping the flash for now, and all as a single unit so one URL (the homepage), then you are going to have to accept that some juice intended for subpages is going to go to the homepage. You cannot do anything about that aspect, so you need to focus on the rest of the problem. However, whilst far from ideal, at least the juice is hitting the site somehow.
So… what to do?
Firstly, I'd start getting into the mindset of thinking in terms of the HTML site as the main/canonical site, and the Flash site as the 'enhanced experience' version. In this way, the HTML version is going to be the version that should be crawled by Google, and should be linked to.
Actions:
- Setup detection for mobile user-agents (out of preference I'd say all, but at least those known not to support flash, such as iPhone/iPad) and search engine bots, and ensure they get served the HTML version. Currently your homepage requires a click through on iPad offering an impossible Flash download, why not serve them the HTML page off the bat.
Is this cloaking? No! The HTML version is the main version, remember? It's no more cloaking than if you detected the user agent and then chose to serve the Flash version to Googlebot.
I actually discussed this with Jane Copeland at the fantastic Distilled link building event a couple of weeks back, and she agreed with me and said if it would stand up to a manual inspection then it is the right course of action.
-
Get all links in articles, press releases, directories or whatever else that are linking to specific pages and are originating from in house (or any source you have control over) to link to the HTML pages.
-
If the user arrives, has Flash and has arrived to an HTML link, you can now redirect to the Flash link for that page so they get the 'enhanced experience'. Don't use a 301 redirect -- remember the HTML version is the main version!
-
If the user arrives via a Flash link, but doesn't have Flash, but does have javascript you can detect the # variable and redirect them to the HTML page to help them along.
-
Educate the relevant stakeholders regarding point 2. I see you have a 'flashmode=0' option, tell them about this and how to use it get the URLs they need.
So where does this leave us?
-
The search engines can crawl all your lovely content, and they can ignore the flash version completely.
-
You are getting inbound links to specific pages. These pages have their own titles and meta descriptions… and content! Because they are the real site!
-
Users with Flash arriving via these links are landing on the correct Flash page of the site and are experiencing the rich site that you want them to.
-
Users arriving without Flash are getting the correct page if they arrive via an HTML URL. If they arrive via a Flash url then they get the correct page if they have javascript on (e.g iPad users), or they get the fallback of the homepage (rare).
I had a client with an almost identical situation, and I rolled out an almost identical solution to this, and they got crawled very quickly, shot up in Google and have stayed there for months.
Hope it helps. Let us know how you get on!
-
It's definitely a drag to have your links diluted between 2 versions of the site. There are a few solutions you can use, but the easiest would probably be to start using the rel=canonical tag on the flash version which points back to the same or similar page on the HTML site. That way, the engines know that the version you want indexed is the HTML version.
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
-
Newbie: .co.uk site redirecting to .com.
If I run a Moz report on the .co.uk site I get a domain authority reading but if I do the same on the .com site there is no authority. How do I get authority passed to the .com (the domain name is the same in both cases)
Technical SEO | | timgtheo0 -
Pages with a short life time... example Flash Sales Ecommerce Sites?
Hello everyone, I am managing an ecommerce website and I am not sure what policy I need to make for a lot of the product pages.The Product pages, example Givency Bag, go live on a specific date and go down in a few days... like Groupon. Please shed some light in this dark tunnel.
Technical SEO | | MTalhaImtiaz
Thanks and regards,0 -
Bad link profile?
Hi Mozzers! We have recently been handed this client due to the former SEO company building up a bad link profile, which resulted in the site dropping off the search results all together. Forcing them to get a new domain. This happened in July last year and we are unsure whether it would be wise to submit a reconsideration request and then 301 their old sites pages to the new domain. Basically I'm asking whether you can spot any spammy links being built in their profile. Here is the old domain: http://www.claimssolicitors.co.uk/ It would be great if you could help me out! 🙂 Thanks
Technical SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Should I show archives on site?
Should I show my archives on my site? I have WordPress and have dragged the archive widget to the bottom. Would this be considered duplicate content?This is what it looks like. October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012
Technical SEO | | MyAllenMedia0 -
Help optimising this site
Hi I have been optimising this site http://seakayakdevon.co.uk/ which is a wordpress site since making changes to it recently the site is now indexed and appearing among its competitors. trouble is they still are placed higher rn the SE rankings. i wish to optimise for local search i.e on Google places etc. but the trouble is there is'nt a physical address for the business it is run from various coastal locations. any ideas how i can still market for local search- maps etc. I have done the following optimisation: sitemaps title tag, description tag improved content removed duplicate content an blocker pages replace image text and replaced with header tag improved page names - making them static any advice of guidance would be greatly appreciated- will the fatc its built in wordpress limit its ability to gain better ranking in the SE? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Bristolweb0 -
Will training videos available on the "members only" section of a site contribute to the sites ranking?
Hello, I got asked a question recently as to whether training videos on the deeper pages of a website (that you can only access if you are a member and log in) will help with the sites ranking. On the SEOMoz software these deeper pages have been crawled as far as I can tell with errors reported on pages from the "members only" section of the site, leading me to believe the members only pages and their content will contribute to the sites overall ranking profile. I have suggested uploading the informational videos on the main pages of the site for now, making them accessible to all visitors and putting them in a more obvious place to encourage more sharing and views, however I've also said I would check it out with some experts so any information will be greatly appreciated! Many thanks 🙂 Charlotte
Technical SEO | | CharlotteWaller0 -
How do I set up a site review for a password protected site?
We need to conduct a SEO analysis for a website that is on a private, password protected development site -- is there anyway for SEOMoz tools to access and analyze a PW protected site? Thank you, Sara Merten
Technical SEO | | kev110