Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Layered navigation and hiding nav from user agent
-
I am trying to deal with the duplicate content issues presented by Magento's layered navigation feature (aka faceted navigation). I installed Amasty's Improved Navigation extension (https://amasty.com/improved-layered-navigation.html) and it offers the option to hide the layered navigation from specific user agents (ie googlebot, bingbot, etc).
This seems like cloaking to me and I hesitate to try it, unless hiding faceted navigation from specific user agents is known to be acceptable to Google (white hat practice). Does anyone know if this the case?
-
Great, thanks Carson! You're insights have been very helpful. I think we'll try to make the on-page ajax solution work.
-
If you're really worried about indexation I think that's a fine solution. It's definitely easier to manage, and it'll also be easier to track pageviews in most analytics platforms. The only downside is that if someone emails or links to a category page with filters applied the recipient won't see it. But generally people share products and not category pages, so it's not a big deal. I'd probably go that route.
Also make sure that your category pages still update the URL when you go to page 2, or that page 2 is somehow also being indexed. You don't want products that don't get indexed because categories can't be crawled.
-
Thanks for the link! I can see how Google offers me a way to tell it how to use my site variables. It seems like between managing parameters in webmaster tools, using canonical links and adding meta noindex tags on variable pages, there should be enough to keep things in order with the search engines. And I can just assume Google knows not to waste too much crawl budget on the variable pages.
I was considering one other option that would remove concerns about variables altogether. Using a different extension, I can set up Magento's layered navigation to work on the page without updating the URL. This eliminates the need for canonicals, parameters, and everything else that is more in Google's control than mine. What do you think of that as a solution?
-
Yes, the bots will crawl the pages, but they will not INDEX them.
There is a concern there, but mostly if the bots get caught in some kind of crawl trap - where they're trying out a near-infinite set of variables and getting stuck in a loop. Otherwise the spiders should understand the variables. You can actually check it in Webmaster tools to make sure Google understands. Instructions for that here:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6080550?hl=en
Ultimately Google will definitely not penalize you for having lots of duplicate content on URLs through variables, but it might be an issue with Googlebot not finding all your pages. You can make sure that doesn't happen by checking the indexation of your sitemap.
You could also try to block any URLs with the URL parameter in robots.txt. Make sure you get some help on the RegEx if you plan to do this. My advice is that blocking the variables in robots.txt is not worth it, as Google should have no problems with the variables - especially if the canonical tags are working.
Googlebot at least is smart enough these days to know when to stop crawling variable pages, so I think there are more important on-site things to worry about. Make sure your categories are linked to and optimized, for example.
-
This gets into an issue of bots and crawling where I am less clear. Even with canonicals, don't search engine bots crawl all of the pages produced with faceted navigation? That will easily reach 10,000+ pages on my site, which currently has a total number of pages in the low hundreds. I was under the impression I don't want to set up the faceted navigation in a way where the bots crawl through every combination of pages created by my products' attribute filters and bog the bots down in a quagmire of low-value pages. But I'm not sure if that's the case or how concerned I need to be about the bots spending their time on those pages.
-
If I'm not mistaken Magento has canonical tags on category pages by default, so you might be trying to solve an issue that doesn't exist. Take a look at the source code on faceted navigation to confirm. Or you can send me the site and I'll look over it.
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
-
How safe is it to use a meta-refresh to hide the referrer?
Hi guys, So I have a review site and I'm affiliated with several partnership programs whose products I advertise on my site. I don't want these affiliate programs to see the source of my traffic (my site), so I'm looking for a safe solution to hide the referrer URL. I have recently added a rel="noreferrer" tag to all my affiliate links, but this method isn't perfect as not all browsers respect that rule. After doing some research and checking my competitors I noticed that some of them use meta-refresh, which seems more reliable in this regard. So, how safe is it to use meta-refresh as means of hiding referrer URL? I'm worrying that implementing a meta-refresh redirect might negatively affect my SEO. Does anybody have any suggestions on how to hide the referrer URL without damaging SEO? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ibis150 -
Duplicate without user-selected canonical excluded
We have pdf files uploaded in the media of wordpress and used in our website. As these pdfs are duplicate content of the original publishers, we have marked links to these pdf urls as nofollow. These pages are also disallowed in robots.txt Now, Google Search Console has shown these pages Excluded as "Duplicate without user-selected canonical" As it comes out we cannot use canonical tag with pdf pages so as to point to the original pdf source If we embed a pdf viewer in our website and fetch the pdfs by passing the urls of the original publisher, would the pdfs be still read as text by google and again create duplicate content issue? Another thing, when the pdf expires and is removed, it would lead to 404 error. If we direct our users to the third party website, then it would add up to our bounce rate. What should be the appropriate way to handle duplicate pdfs? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dailynaukri1 -
The main navigation is using JS, will this have a negative impact on SEO?
Hi mozzers, We just redesigned our homepage and discovered that our main nav is using JS and when disabling JS, no main nav links was showing up. Is this still considered bad practice for SEO? https://cl.ly/14ccf2509478 thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ty19861 -
Click To Reveal vs Rollover Navigation Better For Organic?
Hi, Any thoughts, data or insights as which is better in a top navigation... click to reveal the nav links or rollover to reveal the nav links? Regular content in an accordion (click to reveal) is evidently not best practice. Does that apply to navigation as well? Thanks! Best... Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Faceted Navigation URLs Best Practices
Hi, We are developing new Products Pages with faceted filters. You can see it here: https://www.viatrading.com/wholesale-products/ We have a feature allowing to Order By and Group By, which alters the order of all products. There will also be the option to view Products as a table, which will contain same products but with different design and maybe slightly different content of each product. All this will happen without changing the URL, https://www.viatrading.com/all/ Is this the best practice? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | viatrading10 -
Googlebot being redirected but not users?
Hi, We seem to have a slightly odd issue. We noticed that a number of our location category pages were slipping off 1 page, and onto page 2 in our niche. On inspection, we noticed that our Arizona page had started ranking in place of a number of other location pages - Cali, Idaho, NJ etc. Weirdly, the pages they had replaced were no longer indexed, and would remain so, despite being fetched, tweeted etc. One test was to see when the dropped out pages had been last crawled, or at least cached. When conducting the 'cache:domain.com/category/location' on these pages, we were getting 301 redirected to, you guessed it, the Arizona page. Very odd. However, the dropped out pages were serving 200 OK when run through header checker tools, screaming frog etc. On the face of it, it would seem Googlebot is getting redirected when it is hitting a number of our key location pages, but users are not. Has anyone experienced anything like this? The theming of the pages are quite different in terms of content, meta etc. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Sayers0 -
Setting A Custom User Agent in Screaming Frog
Hi all, Probably a dumb question, but I wanted to make sure I get this right. How do we set a custom user agent in Screaming Frog? I know its in the configuration settings, but what do I have to do to create a custom user agent specifically for a website? Thanks much! Malika
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Malika10 -
Pitfalls when implementing the “VARY User-Agent” server response
We serve up different desktop/mobile optimized html on the same URL, based on a visitor’s device type. While Google continue to recommend the HTTP Vary: User-Agent header for mobile specific versions of the page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va6qtaiZRHg), we’re also aware of issues raised around CDN caching; http://searchengineland.com/mobile-site-configuration-the-varies-header-for-enterprise-seo-163004 / http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2249533/How-Googles-Mobile-Best-Practices-Can-Slow-Your-Site-Down / http://orcaman.blogspot.com/2013/08/cdn-caching-problems-vary-user-agent.html As this is primarily for Google's benefit, it's been proposed that we only returning the Vary: User-Agent header when a Google user agent is detected (Googlebot/MobileBot/AdBot). So here's the thing: as the server header response is not “content” per se I think this could be an okay solution, though wanted to throw it out there to the esteemed Moz community and get some additional feedback. You guys see any issues/problems with implementing this solution? Cheers! linklater
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | linklater0