GWT, Editing URL Parameters for Ecommerce Features
-
I have had the setting of "let googlebot decide" on managing my URL parameters on an Ecommerce site in Magento. The products I sell come in different sizes and colors and finishes etc.
These parameters are showing up in Google Webmaster Tools and set for "let googlebot decide". Some of them have as many as 8 million urls monitored.
I changed the editing option to clam these parameters as "narrow searches", but still left the option to "let googlebot decide" (versus block urls).
Will blocking these erroneous urls serve any benefit? Does blocking these help with the crawl/seo?
-
Magento will generally canonicalize correctly by default. What I'm guessing you're seeing are category pages that have variables for faceted navigation - again, a pretty common issue in Magento. I've seen and even "fixed" this issue for past clients with no noticeable results.
If you ARE having problems getting your pages into Google's index (check indexation status in Webmaster tools and look for exact product/category URLs to check) there is a plugin that will remove the variables for faceted navigation on category pages. The main downside is that someone who emials/shares a link will not share it with the filters/sorting attached.
Generally I recommend leaving it alone. If you're not having indexation problems, though, it should be fine to leave alone and let Google figure it out.
-
Hi Nathan,
I tend to agree with Patrick, but if you aren't seeing any issues with SERP rankings then you may not wish to go changing anything.
If you plan to go ahead, here are my thoughts.
Don't go blocking the pages rather look into canonical tags, I asked a similar question yesterday and was pointed to some articles that proved useful.
Moz's guide on Canonicalization would be my first go to.
Plus there is always the Google guide on duplicate content which I would imagine you have already looked at - But just in case that's here.
If it's a case of TL;DR - There is little damage that can be done with correctly set up canonical tags, so get in touch with your web developer or hit the research harder and just set them up wither way. Adding the Canonical tags will do no harm and help rule out any duplicate content concerns.
Hope that helps,
Richard
-
Hi there
I wouldn't block these pages so long as you have your parameters set up in Google Webmaster Tools, as well as indicated paginated content.
Remember, there are opportunities with canonical tags as well, so again, I see no reason to block these pages.
As long as you take proper steps to avoid duplicate content and let engines know what is happening, you should be fine.
Hope this helps, this is just my opinion - good luck!
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
-
Pagination new pages vs parameters
I'm working on a site that currently handles pagination like this cars-page?p=1 cars-page?p=2 In webmaster tools I can then tell ?p= designates pagination However I have a plugin I want to add to fix other seo issues, among those it adds rel="prev" rel="next" and it modifies the pagination to this cars-page-1.html cars-page2.html Notice I lost the parameter here and now each page is a different page url, pagination is no longer a parameter. I will not longer be able to specify the pagination parameter in webmaster tools. Would this confuse google as the pagination is no longer a parameter and there will now be multiple urls instead of one page with parameters? My gut says this would be bad, as I haven't seen this approach often on ecommerce site, but I wanted to see what the community thought?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | K-WINTER0 -
How should you determine the preferred URL structure?
Hi Guys, When migrating to a new CMS which include new pages how should you determine the URL structure, specifically: So should we include www. or without it? Should the URL have a trailing slash? How would you determine the answer to these questions? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kayl870 -
GWT app and link emulation
Hi, I have a gwt site - https://www.whatiswhere.com. I have tab control which emulates the menu. I am planning to put <a>links instead of text into tab labels to create internal links. I am thinking to add java script to stop onclick event of</a> <a>otherwise i will get to the new session of GWT site. What I want is to just change the tab but at the same time have a link for the crawler. Would my approach work? Will it be equivalent to non-follow link? Will it improve the ranking comparing to 'no link at all' case?</a> <a>Thanks, Andrei.</a>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Anazar_20010 -
How and When Should I use Canonical Url Tags?
Pretty new to the SEO universe. But I have not used any canonical tags, just because there is not definitive source explaining exactly when and why you should use them??? Am I the only one who feels this way?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | greenrushdaily0 -
Ecommerce combating canabilsation
Hey Mozzers, I think i know the answer to this one but i just wanted to check my thinking if you wouldnt mind. I have an ecommerce website with lots of very similar products, for example Blue widget
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ATP
Waterproof blue widget
Blue widget with Alarm One of the pages is ranking top 10 for "blue widget", however the other intermittently swap with it, knocking that page out and itself into the top 10. Then a few weeks later it swaps back again. This seems like a clear case of keyword canablisation to me. And i am wondering on the best solution. 301: Obviously not an answer as i need all 3 products visible
Canonical to one of the pages: Doesn't seem correct either, the products are similiar but not the same, all 3 could rank for different longtails etc I was suffering from something similiar on my closely related category pages and I combated that by interlinking them all with the relevant keywords to point to the relevant pages. Should i do the same for these products such as...
From 'Blue Widget' product link to "Blue widget with alarm" and "Waterproof Blue Widget"
From Waterproof blue widget and blue widget with alarm link to "Blue Widget" (using the anchor text in the ""). This should tell serps that all pages are about blue widget but the main one is the "blue widgets" page. Correct? As a follow up. Is this one of the reason ecommerce sights have related products options?0 -
GWT - Links to website - Are they accurate
Hi I am looking at GWT more and more and I starting not to believe the information within it. For example we had a link on XYZ.com say 6 months ago. This link as been removed no reference to our website, however it still showing on GWT inbound links. I have noticed quite a few sites which have no relevance to our site. Is anyone else finding the information wrong in WMT
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0 -
URL Parameter Being Improperly Crawled & Indexed by Google
Hi All, We just discovered that Google is indexing a subset of our URL’s embedded with our analytics tracking parameter. For the search “dresses” we are appearing in position 11 (page 2, rank 1) with the following URL: www.anthropologie.com/anthro/category/dresses/clothes-dresses.jsp?cm_mmc=Email--Anthro_12--070612_Dress_Anthro-_-shop You’ll note that “cm_mmc=Email” is appended. This is causing our analytics (CoreMetrics) to mis-attribute this traffic and revenue to Email vs. SEO. A few questions: 1) Why is this happening? This is an email from June 2012 and we don’t have an email specific landing page embedded with this parameter. Somehow Google found and indexed this page with these tracking parameters. Has anyone else seen something similar happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kevin_reyes
2) What is the recommended method of “politely” telling Google to index the version without the tracking parameters? Some thoughts on this:
a. Implement a self-referencing canonical on the page.
- This is done, but we have some technical issues with the canonical due to our ecommerce platform (ATG). Even though page source code looks correct, Googlebot is seeing the canonical with a JSession ID.
b. Resubmit both URL’s in WMT Fetch feature hoping that Google recognizes the canonical.
- We did this, but given the canonical issue it won’t be effective until we can fix it.
c. URL handling change in WMT
- We made this change, but it didn’t seem to fix the problem
d. 301 or No Index the version with the email tracking parameters
- This seems drastic and I’m concerned that we’d lose ranking on this very strategic keyword Thoughts? Thanks in advance, Kevin0 -
URL Parking and Frame Forwarding..
I have a few URLs... Is there any benefit for me to frame forward these empty domains?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IoanSaid0