Can Search Engines Read "incorrect" urls?
-
I know that ideally a url should be something of the nature domain.com/topic, but if the url contains additional characters, for example, domain.com/topic?keyword, can the search engines still understand the complete words in the domain? Even though there are additional "incorrect" characters? Or do they stop "reading" once they find odd characters?
Thanks!
-
A few other things to note for having parameters in URLs:
- In Google Webmaster Tools and Bing Webmaster Tools, you can instruct the search engines to ignore certain parameters, so that they'll treat domain.com/topic?keyword and domain.com/topic as the same page (if ?keyword doesn't change the page content)
- You can also place the rel=canonical element on pages. So you could set domain.com/topic?keyword to rel canonical to domain.com/topic to pass its pagerank along.
-
Search engines will read all your parameters unless you tell google with webmaster tools what parameters to ignore. This can cause an issue with the url like domain.com/topic?keyword&somefield then pages that include the keyword and other parameters will share the link juice. So, if you have 10 options of somefield you will get ~1/10 value per page indexed.
So, it is better for you to use rewrites to include your keyword in the url and then mark parameters to not be indexed in Goggle etc.
-
Search engines can read most characters in a URL string, but specifically & generally refers to a variable in a script which doesn't typically have much valuable information regarding what a page may be about. Sometimes those variables may be the topic of a category of a shopping cart, so I have to imagine that information could be taken into account, but for long urls like the following it is hard to believe everything is factored into the URL's relevance to the keyword: http://www.google.com/search?q=long+url+string&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Search engines index the whole URL and if there is keyword rich content that can definitely help, both from having the keyword bolded in the snippet (CTR WIN!) and a possible bump in the page's relevance to the keyword.
-
In general search engines are able to identify keywords in the URL even if they are i.e. a parameter that follows a "?" or other non-alphanumeric character. They might not treat it as an equally strong signal as when the keyword is a part of the file name, subdomain or domain name though. Hope that answers your question.
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
-
Search Console - Should I request to index redirected URL or Mark as fixed?
Hi all, Many blog posts used to be showing 404s when doing crawl tests and in search console (despite being there when visited.) I realized it was an issue with URL structure. It used to be example.com/post-name I've fixed the issue by changing the URL structure in Wordpress so that they now follow the structure of example.com/post-type/post-name According to sitemaps, Google has now indexed all posts in /post-type/post-name. My question is what to do with crawl errors in Search Console that are still there for example.com/postname. When I fetch, I get a redirect status (which is accurate). At this point should I request to index or mark as fixed? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | MouthyPR0 -
Organic search traffic stats "leaking" into other channels?
Hi Everyone I have a website and am slowly getting to grips with SEO. Last week I enabled a new channel in google analytics which was "email" so I could track effectiveness of the weekly emails we send out. The good news is that a ton of traffic is now being assigned to the email "channel" in GA but my organic search traffic in channels is now down week on week. That feels odd as my overall traffic to the site is up, week on week. Does anyone have any experience of new channels coming on stream and canniballising old ones? Could it be that some of the traffic associated to organic search previously was actually coming from my email, I just didn't know it? thanks all!
Technical SEO | | NappyValleyNet1 -
We have 302 redirect links on our forum that point to individual posts. Should we add a rel="nofollow" to these links?
Moz is showing us that we have a HUGE amount of 302 redirects. These are coming from our community forum. Forum URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/ Example thread URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/ Example URL that points to a specific reply: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewreply/1582/ The above link 302 redirects to this URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/#1582 My two questions would be: Do you think we should we add rel=nofollow to the specific reply URLs? If possible, should we make those redirects 301 vs. 302? Screencast attached. nofollow_302.mp4
Technical SEO | | Bjork1 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
Are similar title tags frowned upon by search engines?
We are a B2B company that is looking to convert to one global portal very soon. It is only then that we will be able to address a lot of the IA SEO issues we are currently facing. However, we are looking to make some quick fixes, namely adding a proper title to the different country homepages. Will having the same title, with only the country modifier swapped out be a good tactic? Since we want a unified title across all country sites, it just makes sense that we don't change it for every single country. For example: Small Business Solutions for B2B Marketers | Company USA Small Business Solutions for B2B Marketers | Company Italy Small Business Solutions for B2B Marketers | France
Technical SEO | | marshseo0 -
Does "?" in my URL have a negative effect?
I am having a difficult time finding specific information about the effect, if any, having a ? within the URL structure. We have the descriptive keyword phrase followed by the ? location id as in this example: http://www.adventuresonly.com/adventure-locations/things-to-do-in-arizona?stateid=124 Any feedback on effect and a corrective process to improve if necessary would be appreciated!
Technical SEO | | RBBonds0 -
My beta site (beta.website.com) has been inadvertently indexed. Its cached pages are taking traffic away from our real website (website.com). Should I just "NO INDEX" the entire beta site and if so, what's the best way to do this? Please advise.
My beta site (beta.website.com) has been inadvertently indexed. Its cached pages are taking traffic away from our real website (website.com). Should I just "NO INDEX" the entire beta site and if so, what's the best way to do this? Are there any other precautions I should be taking? Please advise.
Technical SEO | | BVREID0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0