Last Part Breadcrumb Trail Active or Non-Active
-
Breadcrumbs have been debated quite a bit in the past. Some claim that the last part of the breadcrumb trail should be non-active to inform users they have reached the end. In other words, Do not link the current page to itself.
On the other hand, that portion of the breadcrumb would won't be displayed in the SERPS and if it was may lead to a higher CTR.
Foe example: www.website.com/fans/panasonic-modelnumber
panasonic-modelnumber would not be active as part of the breadcrumb.
What is your take?
-
I would usually say no but so many sites seem to link to that same page they are viewing... If you are doing it for schema markup in Google SERPs all their examples show linking to the last part of the breadcrumb, see google rich snippets
If you want to inform users you can examine adding a text element for the last part but most just leave the last part as the page you are viewing.
-
Hi
I believe breadcrumbs are very valuable and you should not turn them for the home page every other page should have a breadcrumb.
There are methods you want to show up in the SERPS but honestly you page title should reflect the relevance of the page to the person searching therefore showing people the breadcrumb is not a bad thing in my opinion.
All best,
Tom
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
-
www vs non-www
We have 2 variations of domains. www and non-www
Technical SEO | | aaaannieee
Both can be seen by users and have been linked to on press releases, but only the www one has data on Google Search Console.
In the case, what is the best practice for us?0 -
Schema.org markup for breadcrumbs: does it finally work?
Hi, TL;DR: Does https://schema.org/BreadcrumbList work? It's been some time since I last implemented schema.org markup for breadcrumbs. Back then the situation was that google explicitly discouraged the use of the schema.org markup for breadcrumbs. In my experience it had been pretty hit or miss - sometimes it worked without issues; sometimes it did not work without obvious reason. Consequently, I ditched it for the data-vocabulary.org markup which did not give me any issues. However, I prefer using schema.org and currently a new site is being designed for a client. Thus, I'd like to use schema.org markup for the breadcrumb - but of course only if it works now. Google has dropped the previous warning/discouragements and by now lists a schema.org code https://developers.google.com/structured-data/breadcrumbs based on the new-ish https://schema.org/BreadcrumbList. Has anybody here used this markup on a site (preferably more than one) and can confirm whether or not it is reliably working and showing the breadcrumb trail / site hierarchy in the SERP? Thanks for your answers! Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Is this type of activity normal?
One of our pages has been significantly changing positions over the past few weeks. I know that some daily fluctuation is normal, but this seems a bit extreme. Any insight as to why this might be happening? 9QyOs9a.png
Technical SEO | | jmorehouse0 -
Best Practice - Disavow tool for non-canonical domain, 301 Redirect
The Situation: We submitted to the Disavow tool for a client who (we think) had an algorithmic penalty because of their backlink profile. However, their domain is non-canonical. We only had access to http://clientswebsite.com in Webmaster Tools, so we only submitted the disavow.txt for that domain. Also, we have been recommending (for months - pre disavow) they redirect from http://clientswebsite.com to http://www.clientswebsite.com, but aren't sure how to move forward because of the already submitted disavow for the non-www site. 1.) If we redirect to www. will the submitted disavow transfer or follow the redirect? 2.) If not, can we simply re-submit the disavow for the www. domain before or after we redirect? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | thebenro0 -
Moving my website that is currently fully https (ssl) to http (non ssl).
Hey MOZ Community. I have a site that is currently full https (ssl) and what to move it to http (non-ssl). How will this move effect my SEO and what would be the best method of doing so without causing to much damage?
Technical SEO | | Bonx0 -
Hreflang on non-canonical pages
Hi! I've been trying to figure out what is the best way to solve this dilemma with duplicate content and multiple languages across domains. 1 product info page 2 same product but GREEN
Technical SEO | | LarsEriksson
3 same product but RED
4 same product but YELLOW **Question: ** Since pages 2,3,4 just varies slightly I use the canonical tag to indicate they are duplicates of page 1. Now I also want to indicate there are other language versions with the_ rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _element. Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on the canonical page only pointing to the canonical page with "x" language. Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on all pages pointing to the canonical page with the "x" language? Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on all pages and then point it to the translated page (even if it is not a canonical page) ? /Lars0 -
Non-www to www code not working in htaccess
I use the same rewrite code on every site to consolidate the non-www and www versions. All sites in Joomla, linux hosting. Code is as follows: RewriteEngine On rewritecond %{http_host} ^site.com/ rewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.site.com/$1 [R=301,L] Immediately following this code, I also rewrite /index.php to /. Thing is, I can get index.php to rewrite correctly but the non-www won't rewrite to www. I use the same code on every site but for some reason it's not working here. Are there common issues that interfere with rewriting a non-www to www in htaccess that could be interfering with the code I'm using above?
Technical SEO | | Caleone0 -
Should I 301 my non-www accesses to www accesses?
We have external links pointing to both mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com. I read this: http://www.stepforth.com/resources/web-marketing-knowledgebase/non-www-redirect/ and wondered if I should add this to my .htaccess file: RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mydomain.com
Technical SEO | | scanlin
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.mydomain.com/$1 [R=301,L] so that the link juice all flows to the www version of the site? Any reason not to do it?0