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
-
Example.com for english and example.es for spain. Will .com still rank for english querys?
Hello,Due to various technical questions we have decided to implement our multi-language support in a way that example.com servers the English search query's and example.es Spanish. Now there is big volume for English query's in Spain serp. If i have example.es domain for Spain and use language tags will searchers find my .com still for their English terms or automatically only .es will be served for google.es?We would just specify hreflang=EN for the example.com and es for the example.esThank you,
Technical SEO | | advertisingtech1 -
Redirecting old html site to new wordpress site
Hi I'm currently updating an old (8 years old) html site to wordpress and about a month ago I redirected some url's to the new site (which is in a directory) like this... Redirect 301 /article1.htm http://mysite.net/wordpress/article1/
Technical SEO | | briandee
Redirect 301 /article2.htm http://mysite.net/wordpress/article2/
Redirect 301 /article3.htm http://mysite.net/wordpress/article3/ Google has indexed these new url's and they are showing in search results. I'm almost finished the new version of site and it is currently in a directory /wordpress I intend to move all the files from the directory to the root so new url when this is done will be http://mysite.net/article1/ etc My question is - what to I do about the redirects which are in place - do I delete them and replace with something like this? Redirect 301 /wordpress/article1/ http://mysite.net/article1/
Redirect 301 /wordpress/article2/ http://mysite.net/article2/
Redirect 301 /wordpress/article3/ http://mysite.net/article3/ Appreciate any help with this0 -
How Often is Site Crawled
Good morning- I saw some errors in my first crawl and immediately removed the pages from my website. I then re-created my XML sitemap and uploaded to Google. The question I have is will the site be crawled to recognize the changes in the next day or so? The pages were just placed on the site as test pages and never removed. The initial crawl that notified me it was done found the errors and were removed. Thanks for your help. Peter
Technical SEO | | VT_Pete0 -
Changing from ocpatentlawyer.com to www.ocpatentlawyer.com
I want to change my web address from ocpatentlawyer.com to www.ocpatentlawyer.com. My understanding is that google treats these two web addresses as different web addresses. My blog is a pr 5 website. I don't want to make the switch and find out that google no longer ranks my pages and posts anymore.
Technical SEO | | jamesjd80 -
How do you know what version of your site of Google is in their index?
This is going to sound like a strange question, but I am trying to understand which version of our site is in the index. You might think this is an obvious question, but here is why I am asking: 1. Today I searched for a specific keyword and found the listing. 2. I liked on the right arrow next to the listing and checked the cache date. It says 6/28 and shows the site as of 6/28. 3. I expected to see that we were just indexed as we jumped several pages since yesterday and I had just checked two days ago and we hadn't moved at all. It seems like Google may have taken the changes we made on 7/2 but since it is showing 6/28, I am note sure. Since this is confusing, here is the chronology: 1. Made changes 6/20. 2. Site appeared to be indexed on 6/28. 3. Made changes on 7/2. 4. Checked the site on 7/2 and we were in position 60. Checked the site on 7/4 and we were in position 61. 5.. Checked the site today (7/6) and see we are in position 8. The cache date shows as 6/28. I suspect that Google just indexed us yesterday and is reflecting the changes I made on 7/2. But the fact that it says it was cached on 6/28 seems to sugges otherwise. I want to be sure I know which version got us the good rankings - is there any way to be sure? Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards0 -
Is it a bad that my site has the same title and description for directory listings?
I manually listed my site in a few hundred free directories, two paid directores (Joe ant $40, and dirmania $12), and 50 directories that require a reciprocal link ( I paid for a cheap service that gets around having to do the reciprocal). I made the big mistake of having the title and the description for these as the same or very close to the same...is this a huge problem? Should I have my site removed from the free directories or just let it go? I've since stopped focusing on all the directories, and considering saving up to get in Yahoo directory. Working now on getting legit and relevant links from .edu sites.
Technical SEO | | eugenecomputergeeks0 -
My site has vanished from google
Hi my site has vanished from google. We have been for a very long time. for example if you put in gastric band hypnotherapy then we would be first page number two and also lots of other keywords but now we have vanished from google and i do not know why or how to solve this. can anyone please help me and help me understand what i need to do to solve this please My site is http://www.clairehegarty.co.uk I am not sure if i have been banned or why i have dropped out of google
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860