New AddThis URL Sharing
-
So, AddThis just added a cool feature that attempts to track when people share URL's via cutting and pasting the address from the browser.
It appears to do so by adding a URL fragment on the end of the URL, hoping that the person sharing will cut and paste the entire thing. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
Unless I misunderstand, it seems like it will add a fragment to every URL (since it's trying to track all of 'em). Probably not a huge issue for the search engines when they crawl, as they'll, hopefully, discard the fragment, or discard the JS that appends the fragment.
But what about backlinks? Natural backlinks that someone might post to say, their blog, by doing exactly what AddThis is attempting to track - cutting and pasting the link.
What are people's thoughts on what will happen when this occurs, and the search engines crawl that link, fragment included?
-
Thanks, Ryan.
-
I am not sure why you received the malware alert. Here is a direct link to the video on viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/jpozadzides/videos/2/
I can share that I used TYNT. Every page of my content had a hash tag on it and I never saw a search result with a hashtag. I never saw any indication in GWMT that my site used hashtags.
Matt clearly says "Google takes a URL and truncates at the hashmark. If you have bla-bla-bla #3 and bla-bla-bla #4 those both get treated or canonicalized as the same URL"
-
Seems like Rand concurred back in 2009:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-using-the-hash
Useful stuff. About halfway down the comments on the above link Rand mentions needing specific analytics code to track things accurately. Anyone have experience with Google Analytics and # symbols?
By the way, Ryan, that link you posted is being flagged by Avast as containing malware. No idea if it's real or not.
-
I was just watching a Matt Cutts video from 2007. Yes, I know that would be considered the dark ages of SEO but I believe for this topic, the video has relevancy.
@22 minutes in Matt says when Google encounters a hashtag in a URL they truncate it.
http://onemansblog.com/2007/08/04/matt-cutts-lecture-whitehat-seo-tips-for-bloggers/
-
The hash tags do not appear in the SERPs.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the response!
My interest isn't so much about visitors being able to follow the backlink or not, but how the SE's will index them. When a SE crawls a site with URL fragments, my experience has been that they do a good job discarding them.
What I'm seeing is two possibilities:
-
The SE's will discard the fragment when they crawl, and simply index the page as if it didn't have a fragment on the end, meaning a backlink with a fragment is identical to one without. Or,
-
They won't discard the fragment, and we'll end up with duplicates in the SERP's, which would, in part, be dealt with via a canonical tag.
It's great that you've used a similar service with TYNT.com Do you have any experience in how the SE's behave when crawling a link from TYNT and indexing that page?
Cheers.
-
-
This is nothing new to the web, just new to AddThis. TYNT.com offers this identical service. I have used them for some time but since I use AddThis for social sharing, it is more convenient for me to move this service to AddThis and eliminate one vendor.
The hashtag that is added to the end of URLs is there for tracking purposes. You can remove it or alter it, and you will still wind up on the exact same page. The hashtag has no effect on backlinks other then to track them.
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
-
What should my main sitemap URL be?
Hi Mozzers - regarding the URL of a website's main website: http://example.com/sitemap.xml is the normal way of doing it but would it matter if I varied this to: http://example.com/mainsitemapxml.xml or similar? I can't imagine it would matter but I have never moved away from the former before - and one of my clients doesn't want to format the URL in that way. What the client is doing is actually quite interesting - they have the main sitemap: http://example.com/sitemap.xml - that redirects to the sitemap file which is http://example.com/sitemap (with no xml extension) - might that redirect and missing xml extension the redirected to sitemap cause an issue? Never come across such a setup before. Thanks in advance for your feedback - Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Url title and then category vice versa
We have recently developed a site with the structure of domain.com/page-title/about/category Instead of the traditional domain.com/category/page-title We want to optimize more on each single article rather than the category its in. However now we get the info from a seo company that this is rather a bad idea and it hurts the SEO performance because google doesnt understand the structure. The archive page of each category is domain.com/category/overview Whats your input on this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Preen0 -
Is it worth switching from underscores to hyphens in the URL?
I work for a website that recently did a redesign, and switched from hyphens to underscores. We have seen some drop in traffic, although that may be attributed to the migration. I have read that while Google prefers hyphens, the underscore problem is not as much of an issue as it used to be. Is it worth 301'ing the page to a version of itself with hyphens instead of underscores in the URL?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarloSchneider0 -
How canonical url harm our website???
Even though my website has no similar/copied content, i used rel=canonical for all my website pages. Is Google or yahoo make any harm to my SERP's?? EX: http://www.seomoz.org is my site, in that i used canonical as rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.seomoz.org" to my home page like that similar to all pages, i created rel=canonical. Is search engine harm my website???
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MadhukarSV0 -
How do I make my URLs SEO friendly?
Hi all, I am aware that overly-dynamic URLs hurt a website's SEO potential and I want to fix mine. At present they look like this: http://www.societyboardshop.co.uk/products.php?brand=Girl+Skateboards&BrandID=153 What do I need to do to fix them please... do I add some code to the htaccess file? Many thanks, much apreciated. Paul.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul530 -
Changing Site URLs
I am working on a new client that hasn't implemented any SEO previously. The site has terrible url nomenclature and I am wondering if it is worth it to try and change it. Will I lose rankings? What is the best url naming structure? Here's the website http://www.formica.com/en/home/TradeLanding.aspx. (I am only working on the North America site.) Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlightAnalytics0 -
2 Language Versions on Same URL
A site we are working on is a large gift retailer in Canada. They have a language option for French, but the page URLs are the same. If you click 'French' in the header, a cookie is set and then all pages are dynamically served the French content (and all nav/site elements of course change to French). The URLs then are exactly the same as it's the cookie that determines the language option to serve. e.g. www.site.ca/index.php?category=7&product=99.... would be the same regardless of if I'm set for English or French. Question: Does this setup have a negative impact on any SEO factors? The site has several thousand pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BMGSEO0 -
Migrating a site with new URL structure
I recently redesigned a website that is now in WordPress. It was previously in some odd, custom platform that didn't work very well. The URL's for all the pages are now more search engine friendly and more concise. The problem is, now Google has all of the old pages and all of the new pages in its index. This is a duplicate problem since content is the same. I have set up a 301 redirect for every old URL to it's new counterpart. I was going to do a remove URL request in Webmaster Tools but it seems I need to have a 404 code and not a 301 on those pages to do that. Which is better to do to get the old URL's out of the index? 404 them and do a removal request or 301 them to the new URL? How long will it take Google to find these 301 redirects and keep just the new pages in the index?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DanDeceuster0