Hash URLs
-
Hi Mozzers,
Happy Friday! I have a client that has created some really nice pages from their old content and we want to redirect the old ones to the new pages. The way the web developers have built these new pages is to use hashbang url's for example www.website.co.uk/product#newpage
My question is can I redirect urls to these kind of pages? Would it be using the .htaccess file to do it?
Thanks in advance,
Karl
-
Just wanted to clear up a bit of confusion. There is a difference between what can be redirected and what will be indexed by search engines.
It is absolutely possible to redirect the old URL to the new one that includes the local anchor (hash). In this way, user experience is preserved as for example, the old "what is matcha" page can be redirected directly to the new "what is matcha" tab, landing the user exactly where they expect to be. This is done in .htaccess as normal, but don't forget to escape the # symbol in the URL when you write the redirect.
But as Schwaab says, Google will index all the tabs' content as if they were all one page. If you look at the page source for any of those the tabbed pages, you'll see it's actually one primary page that includes separate sections for each tab - you can use GWT's Fetch as Googlebot to confirm this. So getting the main URL indexed means all the tabs' content are indexed, just not under separate URLs.
Having separate pages each targeting different but related matcha-related keywords can be beneficial, but so can having a single, longer-content, authoritative page with many more incoming links (as would be the case if the old separate pages were redirected to one primary page, consolidating all their separate link authority). That becomes a judgment call and is where the "art of SEO" come into play
Hope that helps?
Paul
P.S. Little quirk of local anchor URLs. If you're adding parameters to them such as Google Analytics tracking for incoming links, you need to add the hash after the parameters, or the local anchor won't work. e.g. mysite.com#localanchor becomes mysite.com?utmsource=foo&utm_medium=foo&utm_campaign=bar#localanchor
-
Good luck!
-
I thought that'd be the case! trying to get the developers to create unique pages and try and keep a similar/same design, not sure if it'll be too difficult though. Thanks for the advice though, fingers crossed we'll find a solution.
-
I misunderstood you before, I thought you meant the old URLs had the anchors.
You are correct, technically the tabs are not unique pages. You would have to redirect each of the previous pages to http://www.teapigs.co.uk/tea/matcha_shop rather than to the anchored URL.
Having content under tabs may limit your ability to rank for a variety of keywords. For example, if previously there was a page ranking for "What is Matcha?", it may now be difficult to rank for this term because there is no longer a unique page dedicated to the topic. You lose the ability to have a unique URL, Title Tag, Meta Description, H1, and so on.
-
Hi Schwaab,
Thanks for the reply. Google hasn't cached the new pages.
For example, the old page is http://www.teapigs.co.uk/customer/pages/matcha/what-is-matcha and the new content sits on http://www.teapigs.co.uk/tea/matcha_shop with the different tabs. Are we going to have to make them actual pages with static URL's for them to be crawled and indexed? Got a feeling we will!
-
Is the content technically on one page (ww.website.co.uk/product) and just being displays based on the anchor in the URL?
Has Google indexed the anchored URLs? In my experience Google does not index anchored URLs.
I'd love to see an example to see how it is coded; however, if they are just anchored URLs displaying content that is all located on one page, the products page, then the products page would be the only page you can redirect. Technically, anchored URLs are not unique pages.
If the content is being generated with AJAX and your developers are using the hashbang method to serve a unique URL, I don't believe you would see the hash in the URL.
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
-
Same URL-Structure & the same number of URLs indexed on two different websites - can it lead to a Google penalty?
Hey guys. I've got a question about the url structure on two different websites with a similar topic (bith are job search websites). Although we are going to publish different content (texts) on these two websites and they will differ visually, the url structure (except for the domain name) remains exactly the same, as does the number of indexed landingpages on both pages. For example, www.yyy.com/jobs/mobile-developer & www.zzz.com/jobs/mobile-developer. In your opinion, can this lead to a Google penalty? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vde130 -
URL Parameters, Forms & SEO
Hi I have some pages on the site which have a quote form, in my site crawl I see these showing as duplicate content - my webmaster says this isn't the case, but I'm not sure. Landing page - https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs Page with form - https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs?quote-form - this also somehow has a canonical on it pointing to https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs?quote-form Which neither of us have added. I'm thinking we need to get the canonical needs to be updated to https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs Is it worth doing this for all these pages or am I worrying about nothing? Becky
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
What's the best URL structure?
I'm setting up pages for my client's website and I'm trying to figure out the best way to do this. Which of the following would be best (let's say the keywords being used are "sell xgadget" "sell xgadget v1" "sell xgadget v2" "sell xgadget v3" etc.). Domain name: sellgadget.com Potential URL structures: 1. sellxgadget.com/v1
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Zing-Marketing
2. sellxgadget.com/xgadget-v1
3. sellxgadget.com/sell-xgadget-v1 Which would be the best URL structure? Which has the least risk of being too keyword spammy for an EMD? Any references for this?0 -
Canonical URL availability
Hi We have a website selling cellphones. They are available in different colors and with various data capacity, which slightly changes the URL. For instance: Black iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html White iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,16,000000000010204783).html White iphone, 24GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,24,000000000010204783).html Now, the canonical URL indicates a standard URL: But this URL is never physically available. Instead, a user gets 301 redirected to one of the above URLs. Is this a problem? Does a URL have to be "physically" available if it is indicated as canonical?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zeepartner0 -
Canonical URLs and Sitemaps
We are using canonical link tags for product pages in a scenario where the URLs on the site contain category names, and the canonical URL points to a URL which does not contain the category names. So, the product page on the site is like www.example.com/clothes/skirts/skater-skirt-12345, and also like www.example.com/sale/clearance/skater-skirt-12345 in another category. And on both of these pages, the canonical link tag references a 3rd URL like www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. This 3rd URL, used in the canonical link tag is a valid page, and displays the same content as the other two versions, but there are no actual links to this generic version anywhere on the site (nor external). Questions: 1. Does the generic URL referenced in the canonical link also need to be included as on-page links somewhere in the crawled navigation of the site, or is it okay to be just a valid URL not linked anywhere except for the canonical tags? 2. In our sitemap, is it okay to reference the non-canonical URLs, or does the sitemap have to reference only the canonical URL? In our case, the sitemap points to yet a 3rd variation of the URL, like www.example.com/product.jsp?productID=12345. This page retrieves the same content as the others, and includes a canonical link tag back to www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. Is this a valid approach, or should we revise the sitemap to point to either the category-specific links or the canonical links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 379seo0 -
In Report Card - Weird Characters in URL
We have an underscore in a lot of our links. My question is since it is difficult to change existing site architecture, is an underscore really that negative? Here is an example: http://www.winematch.com/profile_368-2005-Artesa-Vineyards--Winery-Merlot-Reserve.html Eventually we want to change this to http://www.winematch.com/wine/2005-Artesa-Vineyards-Winery-Merlot-Reserve.html but it is a big project.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | roundbrix0 -
SEO Strategy for URL Change
I'm working with a company who will likely have to change their URL because of a trademark dispute. They will be able to maintain the new URL for some period but will soon need to drop the existing URL all together. Aside from the usual keyword considerations when choosing a URL, are there any SEO strategies I should consider as we execute this change?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jon_KS0 -
Does Google count links on a page or destination URLs?
Google advises that sites should have no more than around 100 links per page. I realise there is some flexibility around this which is highlighted in this article: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/questions-answers-with-googles-spam-guru One of Google's justifications for this guideline is that a page with several hundred links is likely to be less useful to a user. However, these days web pages are rarely 2 dimensional and usually include CSS drop--down navigation and tabs to different layers so that even though a user may only see 60 or so links, the source code actually contains hundreds of links. I.e., the page is actually very useful to a user. I think there is a concern amongst SEO's that if there are more than 100ish links on a page search engines may not follow links beyond those which may lead to indexing problems. This is a long winded way of getting round to my question which is, if there are 200 links in a page but many of these links point to the same page URL (let's say half the links are simply second ocurrences of other links on the page), will Google count 200 links on the page or 100?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SureFire0