SEO issues? New functionality added to website and now hash (in URL) - fragments
-
Hi All!
We have new nice functionality on website, but now i doubt if we will have SEO issues. Duplicate content and if google is able to spider our website.
See: http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-nero.html#608=1370
With the new functionality we can switch between colors of the models (black / white / red / yellow).
When you switch with Ajax the content of other models is fetched without refreshing the page. (so the url initial part of url stays the same (for initial model) only part behind # changes.The other models are also accessible by there own url, like the red one: http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-rosso.html#608=1372
So far so good.
But now the questions:
1. We use to have url like /boretti-da-vinci-nero.html - also our canonical is that way
But now if we access that url our system is adding automatically the #123-123 to the url to indicate which model(color) is shown. Is this hurting SEO or confusing google? Because it seems that the clean url is not accessible anymore? (it adds now #123-123)
2. Should we add some tags around the different types (colors) to prevent google from indexing that part of website?
Every info would be very helpfull! We do not want to lose our nice rankings thanks to MOZ!
Thanks all!
Jeroen -
Hi All, Thanks for the updates.
We solved the issue by only add # to the url when changing from color. So initial load of the product is the clean url.
Guess that is all we need to do to don't get penaltilized by Google.
-
We had a problem like this starting a couple months ago. We installed Google Custom Search on a site with the results to be displayed on the same page. Now when you visit any page with the search box a hash and a few rubbish characters follow the URL.
So far, no ranking problems have been seen and no errors are showing in webmaster tools.
Andy's suggestion of rel=canonical is a good one. We should do that on our sites.
-
Hey Jeroen,
If I were you I would play with canonicals in order to not confuse google.
For example: this url http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-nero.html is for the black version, but then if you navigate the page and you go to http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-nero.html#608=1373&swatch_id=750 you should point to the correct URL which is http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-colora.html.
In the last url you also have a bad canonical as even if here http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-nero.html#608=1373&swatch_id=750 you're showing the colora model you're canonicalizing to the nero model. You should fix that.
About duplication this is your last problem as google doesn't index different portions of the same page and using the # you're telling google that those are internal anchors and not different pages.
I hope this makes sense.
E.
-
Hi Joroen,
Are you able to normalise the canonical element to point back to the non-hashed URL? I haven't actually worked on anything quite like this myself, so have no live data to share with you.
Google used to ignore what was after the hashtag (unless you used a hash bang #!), but you will now see anchors being indexed, so this may have some bearing on how it is actioned.
-Andy
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
-
Any issue? Redirect 100's of domains into one website's internal pages
Hi all, Imagine if you will I was the owner of many domains, say 100 demographically rich kwd domains & my plan was to redirect these into one website - each into a different relevant subfolder. e.g. www.dewsburytilers..com > www.brandname.com/dewsbury/tilers.html www.hammersmith-tilers.com > www.brandname.com/hammersmith/tilers.html www.tilers-horsforth.com > www.brandname.com/horsforth/tilers.html another hundred or so 301 redirects...the backlinks to these domains were slim but relevant (the majority of the domains do not have any backlinks at all - can anyone see a problem with this practice? If so, what would your recommendations be?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fergclaw0 -
Merging 4 websites into one for a new site release (301 question)
Hi guys and girls, I have a client that has 4 very outdated websites with about 50 pages on each. They are made up like: 1 brand group and 3 for each individual key service they offer, so let's call them: brand.com (A) brand-service-1.com (B) brand-service-2.com (C) brand-service-3.com (D) We've rebuilt the main site and aggregated all the content from the others (99% re-written). Am I correct in thinking the process for the new lauch would be: 1. Launch the new site on brand.com (A) and 301 all the old brand.com (A) pages to the related pages on the new site. 2. Redirect the other websites (B,C,D) on a domain level to the new site on the brand.com (A) domain. 3. Clean up the old URL's, sitemaps, errors in Google WMT Is this right? Anything I missed/better practices? I was also wondering if I should redirect B,C,D in stages, or use page level redirects.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shloy23-2945840 -
Replatforming possible issue with Submitting URLS
We are replatforming an ecommerce site and will need to change 90% of the urls. Many current urls contain uppercase characters and the new system forces all lowercase. We are concerned with submitting the urls all at once to google it might look like spam, receive some sort of penalty or negatively affect organic search. In the last month this site received 428k unique visitors, 3.2 mil page views and has about 10k urls. They are a top 3 competitor in their vertical. We are certainly planning to do all 301 redirects. What can we do additionally to reduce the risk of penalties here?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RocketWeb0 -
Website Migration and SEO
Recently I migrated three websites from www.product.com to www.brandname.com/product. Two of these site are performing as normal when it comes to SEO but one of them lost half of its traffic and dropped in rankings significantly. All pages have been properly redirected, onsite SEO is intact and optimized, and all pages are indexed by Search engines. Has anyone had experience with this type of migration that could give some input on what a possible solution could be? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlexVelazquez0 -
Should we use URL parameters or plain URL's=
Hi, Me and the development team are having a heated discussion about one of the more important thing in life, i.e. URL structures on our site. Let's say we are creating a AirBNB clone, and we want to be found when people search for apartments new york. As we have both have houses and apartments in all cities in the U.S it would make sense for our url to at least include these, so clone.com/Appartments/New-York but the user are also able to filter on price and size. This isn't really relevant for google, and we all agree on clone.com/Apartments/New-York should be canonical for all apartment/New York searches. But how should the url look like for people having a price for max 300$ and 100 sqft? clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100 or (We are using Node.js so no problem) clone.com/Apartments/New-York/Price/30/Size/100 The developers hate url parameters with a vengeance, and think the last version is the preferable one and most user readable, and says that as long we use canonical on everything to clone.com/Apartments/New-York it won't matter for god old google. I think the url parameters are the way to go for two reasons. One is that google might by themselves figure out that the price parameter doesn't matter (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687?hl=en) and also it is possible in webmaster tools to actually tell google that you shouldn't worry about a parameter. We have agreed to disagree on this point, and let the wisdom of Moz decide what we ought to do. What do you all think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peekabo0 -
Entire site code copied - potential SEO issues?
Hi folks, We have noticed that our site has been directly duplicated by another site. They have copied the entire code, including the JS, CSS and most of the HTML and have simply switched their own text and images onto the template. (We discovered it because they even copied over our analytics tracking and were appearing in our reports - duh!) Does anyone know if there are potential SEO issues in copying the code like that, or do duplicate content issues only apply to indexable HTML content? Thanks! Matthew (I didn't want to out them by sharing their URL because it could have been an external contractor that built the site and they probably had no idea.)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MattBarker0 -
Adding a huge new product range to eCommerce site and worried about Duplicate Content
Hey all, We currently run a large eCommerce site that has around 5000 pages of content and ranks quite strongly for a lot of key search terms. We have just recently finalised a business agreement to incorporate a new product line that compliments our existing catalogue, but I am concerned about dumping this huge amount of content (that is sourced via an API) onto our site and the effect it might have dragging us down for our existing type of product. In regards to the best way to handle it, we are looking at a few ideas and wondered what SEOMoz thought was the best. Some approaches we are tossing around include: making each page point to the original API the data comes from as the canonical source (not ideal as I don't want to pass link juice from our site to theirs) adding "noindex" to all the new pages so Google simply ignores them and hoping we get side sales onto our existing product instead of trying to rank as the new range is highly competitive (again not ideal as we would like to get whatever organic traffic we can) manually rewriting each and every new product page's descriptions, tags etc. (a huge undertaking in terms of working hours given it will be around 4,400 new items added to our catalogue). Currently the industry standard seems to just be to pull the text from the API and leave it, but doing exact text searches shows that there are literally hundreds of other sites using the exact same duplicate content... I would like to persuade higher management to invest the time into rewriting each individual page but it would be a huge task and be difficult to maintain as changes continually happen. Sorry for the wordy post but this is a big decision that potentially has drastic effects on our business as the vast majority of it is conducted online. Thanks in advance for any helpful replies!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ExperienceOz0 -
Is it OK to have a site that has some URLs with hyphens and other, older, legacy URLs that use underscores?
I'm working with a VERY large site that has recently been redesigned/recategorized. They kept only about 20% of the URLs from the legacy site, the URLs that had revenue tied to them, and these URLs use underscores. Whereas the new URLs created for the site use hyphens. I don't think that this would be an issue for Google, as long as the pages are of quality, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this. Will it hurt me to have two different sets of URLs, those with using hyphens and those using underscores?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Business.com0