# in url affecting rank
-
Hi
I am building links to a page www.companyname.com/category.index.php
There is also another similar url www.companyname.com/category.index.php#. This page is linked to from the non # page. This is a new client and I'm not entirely sure why that link is there.
Am I correct in thinking that these two urls are different in the eyes of the search engines?
If so, would some of the link juice to www.companyname.com/category.index.php
be transferred to
www.companyname.com/category.index.php#
and affect the ranking of the non # page?
I hope this makes sense!
Thanks
-
I had similar question, but I found this discussion so won’t send my questions as a new one.
My questions was that is it a SEO (link juice) problem when we did 301 redirects from http://www.example.com/folder to http://www.anotherdomain.com/folder/#rdr=oldsite
We added the hash / parameter to get stats how many visits do we get from the old site now and in the future, and with the help of hash in url we can get this information from our analytics tool.After reading Mike’s answer, I believe I found my answer and understand that this is not a problem, but if anyone have other comments then please respond. Thanks!
-
That's great Mike, thanks for your help.
I'm pretty confident it's not a duplicate page now, although we do need to link to the correct page, simply from a user experience point of view.
Cheers.
-
The hash or "#" is usually just referenced by the browser, not the server, so Google does no care about the use of a "#" at the end of your URL. In fact, you can go to pretty much any page and add "#" at the end and you will get the same page, because it is a browser reference.
Some web designers will also just put "#" as the URL as they are coding, because they do not know the final URL.
If you can pinpoint where this is happening, I would suggest fixing it, even if it is not impacting Google indexing or your SEO... just from a "good house keeping" point of view.
You would use the canonical tag if you wanted to keep both versions in place. If you only want to keep one version, you would 301 redirect, which come to think of it... I don't know if you can do, again because the hash is usually just reference by the browser and not the server.
Here is also a quick quote from John Mu (an engineer at Google), stating, "We generally ignore the "fragments" (as in http://domain.com/path#fragment) when crawling, indexing and ranking since this is generally just something that is handled on the client side."
If you provide the domain, I might be able to help you further.
Hope this info helps.
Mike
-
Many thanks for your answer danrawk.
I think the # has been left from when the website was being developed and was used as a placeholder for where the intended url should go.
I'm not seeing any duplicate content issues in Webmaster Tools. Would this mean Google doesn't see this as two different urls?
If it does see two different urls, I guess we will have to use canonical tag.
Thanks
-
the hash "#" is sometimes used as a link reference to a specific spot on a linked page
i.e. www.companyname.com/category.index.php#specificspot
do you have access to google webmaster tools? in there, you should see a section about duplicate content that google is seeing. that might be of some help to you.
if by chance the # is not used in the way mentioned above, and it's some weird content management system character to manage pages, you may want to implement canonical tagging so that when someone views
www.companyname.com/category.index.php#
the canonical reference is for :
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
-
Numbers in URL
Hey guys! Need your many awesome brains. 🙂 This may be a very basic question but am hoping you can help me out with some insights beyond "because Google says it's better". 🙂 I only recently started working with SEO, and I work for a SaaS website builder company that has millions of open/active user sites, and all our user sites URLs, instead of www.mydomainname.com/gallery or myusername.simplesite.com/about, we use numbers, so www.mysite.com/453112 or myusername.simplesite.com/426521 The Sales manager has asked me to figure out if it will pay off for us in terms of traffic (other benefits?) to change it from the number system to the "proper" and right way of setting up these URLs. He's looking for rather concrete answers, as he usually sits with paid search and is therefore used to the mindset of "if we do x it will yield us y in z months". I'm finding it quite difficult to find case studies/other concrete examples beyond the generic, vague implication that it will simply be "better" (when for example looking at SEO checklists and search engine guidelines). Will it make a difference? How so? I have to convince our developers of the importance and priority of this adjustment, or it will just drown in the many projects they already have. So truly, any insights would be so very welcome. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | michelledemaree2 -
Eligible To Rank For Few Queries
I can't figure out why this site (www.liveathomeseniors.com) is eligible for so few search queries on Google Webmaster Tools. I know there is a lot of work to be done, but this is my biggest puzzle right now. What am I not seeing? 379 pages are indexed and yet the site is has only been deemed eligible to rank for 3 queries over the past 3 months. Is it all the repetition in the way the content has been structured? I'd appreciate people's thoughts on this. I can't see the forest for the trees. Donna
Technical SEO | | DonnaDuncan0 -
Website not ranking but the blog is!
I am hoping someone might be able to help me, I am doing some work on a website. A new version of the site was recently launched and since then rankings have plummeted and the new blog pages are ranking better! When the new version of the site went live, the domain changed to the non-www version, plus an incorrect robots.txt file and we have never really been able to fully recover (both of these things were beyond my control!). The robots.txt file was corrected and some of the external links links changed to the non-www but there is a 301 redirect in place so changing to the non-www shouldn't have been the reason to drop the site out completely. Before the launch of the new website, the site was ranking on the front page of Google for a lot of relevant keywords such as outdoor blinds, outdoor blinds Perth, cafe blinds, patio blinds, etc. The quality of the links is pretty bad and I am attempting to remove them before doing a disavow of all the really bad quality links but unless we were really unlucky I don't think it's the links right now that are causing the problem. I have ran the site through numerous crawl tests, checked the robots.txt, there are no messages in GWMT, the pages are indexed but I have a feeling there is something wrong with the site that is stopping this site from ranking well. If anyone could give me any insights I would be really grateful. I know the site could be better structured from a keyword/ structure perspective but the site was ranking fine!
Technical SEO | | Karen_Dauncey0 -
Are the duplicate content and 302 redirects errors negatively affecting ranking in my client's OS Commerce site?
I am working on an OS Commerce site and struggling to get it to rank even for the domain name. Moz is showing a huge number of 302 redirects and duplicate content issues but the web developer claims they can not fix those because ‘that is how the software in which your website is created works’. Have you any experience of OS Commerce? Is it the 302 redirects and duplicate content errors negatively affecting the ranking?
Technical SEO | | Web-Incite0 -
Overly Dynamic URLs
I have a site that I use to time fitness events and I like to post the results using query strings. I create a link to each event's results/gallery/etc. I don't need these pages crawled and I don't want them to hurt my seo. Can I put a "do not crawl" meta on them or will that hurt my overall positioning? What are my other options?
Technical SEO | | bobbabuoy0 -
Where to place your brandname in your URL?
Hello everybody! Quick and short question: What is better when you want to rank for your your brandname? www.jobsbrandname.com or www.brandnamejobs.com I think for SEO it's better to use the last one but marketing has the wish to use the first one. Thanks for your responce!
Technical SEO | | ltom0 -
Ignore Urls with pattern.
I have 7000 warnings of urls because of a 302 redirect. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/44060409.png/ I want to get rid of those, is it possible to get rid of the Urls with robots.txt. For example that it does not crawl anything that has /product_compare/ in its url? Thank you
Technical SEO | | levalencia10 -
Redirect and ranking
Wehave 2 websites for the same keyword Website 1 is indexed on place 2 but we do not like that name any longer it does not fit our long term marketing Website 2 is indexed on place 5 and this domain fits better What will happen if we redirect website 1 to website 2? Fall down to postion 5 Fall down to position 5 and after a certain period we get back at position 2 or 3 thanx in advance for your reply
Technical SEO | | turnon0