Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Do any short url's pass link juice? googles own? twitters?

Technical SEO

1320

Aviawest last edited by

I've read a few posts saying not shorten links at all but we have a lot to tweet and need to. Is googles shortener the best option?

I've considered linking to the category index page the article is on and expect the user to find the article and click on the article, I don't like the experience that creates though.

I've considered making the article permalink tiny but I would lose the page title being in the url. Is this the best option?
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
bozzie311 Subscriber last edited by

I use the google shortener all the time because it does pass value. I would say yes.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0

Got a burning SEO question?

Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.

Start my free trial

Browse Questions

View

From

Sorted by

With category

Explore more categories

Related Questions

Duplicated content & url's for e-commerce website

Hi, I have an e-commerce site where I sell greeting cards. Products are under different categories (birthday, Christmas etc) with subcategories (for Mother, for Sister etc) and same product can be under 3 or 6 subcategories, for example: url: .../greeting-cards/Christmas/product1/for-mother
url:.../greeting-cards/Christmas/product1/for-sister
etc On the CMS I have one description record per each card (product1) with multiple subcategories attached that naturally creates URLs for subcategories. Moz system (and Google for sure) picks these urls (and content) as duplicated.
Any ideas how to solve this problem?
Thank you very much!
Technical SEO | | jurginga

0
How google bot see's two the same rel canonicals?

Hi, I have a website where all the original URL's have a rel canonical back to themselves. This is kinda like a fail safe mode. It is because if a parameter occurs, then the URL with the parameter will have a canonical back to the original URL. For example this url: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ has this canonical: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ which is the same since it's an original URL This url https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter has this canonical https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ like i said before, parameters have a rel canonical back to their original url's. SO: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter and this https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ both have the same canonical which is this https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ Im telling you all that because when roger bot tried to crawl my website, it gave back duplicates. This happened because it was reading the canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) of the original url (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) and the canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) of the url with the parameter (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter) and saw that both were point to the same canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/)... So, i would like to know if google bot treats canonicals the same way. Because if it does then im full of duplicates 😄 thanks.
Technical SEO | | dos0659

0
New theme adds ?v=1d20b5ff1ee9 to all URL's as part of cache. How does this affect SEO

New theme I am working in ads ?v=1d20b5ff1ee9 to every URL. Theme developer says its a server setting issue. GoDaddy support says its part of cache an becoming prevalent in new themes. How does this impact SEO?
Technical SEO | | DML-Tampa

0
Google UK and the slog of Link building

Background:
I have a number of sites built using the open eCommerce software zen cart. One of these sites was penalised by the original Penguin algorithm back in April 24, 2012. The reason for the panalty was that two ecommerce sites in Hong kong had a link to the above site in the footer of their 2000 & 4000 product website. I have no idea why the site had these links and even though I did contact them a few months before the Penguin massacre asking them to remove the footer link I was technically unaware of the ticking time bomb that they presented. The result, as is now engrained in SEO history, was that the site was moved to sit alongside Googles equivalent of the restaurant at the end of the universe and stayed there for 2 years until April 2014.
As I had never indulged in link building for the simple reason that I found it laborious I was obviously infuriated with the resulting loss of revenue but that was balanced with an understanding that I had not kept pace with the changing landscape of SEO according to Google. The quest I am now on is to increase my 3 sites profile on the web without getting another spanking from Google in the near future. The problem I have is that white hat today may well be black hat tomorrow. (I can recall the days when Google said links are good and everyone went out and asked other websites to link with them and look where that led.) So do I ignore actively cultivating links as some suggest and look to produce good content (which is quite difficult when you make mugs and candles by the way.) or do you go out and look to intentionally build links by studying competitors links, reviewing link opportunity or get bloggers to review products. For a small lifestyle entrepreneur like myself, the ever changing seo landscape and the amount of time & effort it requires is slowly and inevitably pushing us back out to that restaurant mentioned earlier. If only Google had a little brother that was designed purely for small businesses - like it was in the good old days before the dinosaur that is big business grunt and thought hmmm! whats that?
And if there were such a thing I would add a caveat that it would be illegal to generate pointless amount of cyber content because the web is becoming something akin to a landfill. Which leaves me nowhere really - but I think I am okay with that. Waiter !!
Technical SEO | | Brinley

0
Blocked URL's by robots.txt

In Google Webmaster Tools shows me 10,936 Blocked URL's by robots.txt and it is very strange when you go to the "Index Status" section where shows that since April 2012 robots.txt blocked many URL's. You can see more precise on the image attached (chart WMT) I can not explain why I have blocked URL's ? because I have nothing in robots.txt.
My robots.txt is like this: User-agent: * I thought I was penalized by Penguin in April 2012 because constantly i'am losing visitors now reaching over 40%. It may be a different penalty? Any help is welcome because i'm already so saturated. Mera robotstxt.jpg
Technical SEO | | meralucian37

0
'No Follow' and 'Do Follow' links when using WordPress plugins

Hi all I hope someone can help me out with the following question in regards to 'no follow' and 'do follow' links in combination with WordPress plugins. Some plugins that deal with links i.e. link masking or SEO plugins do give you the option to 'not follow' links. Can someone speak from experience that this does actually work?? It's really quite stupid, but only occurred to me that when using the FireFox add on 'NoDoFollow' as well as looking at the SEOmoz link profile of course, 95% of my links are actually marked as FOLLOW, while the opposite should be the case. For example I mark about 90% of outgoing links as no follow within a link masking plugin. Well, why would WordPress plugins give you the option to mark links as no follow in the first place when they do in fact appear as follow for search engines and SEOmoz? Is this a WordPress thing or whatnot? Maybe they are in fact no follow, and the information supplied by SEO tools comes from the basic HTML structure analysis. I don't know... This really got me worried. Hope someone can shed a light. All the best and many thanks for your answers!
Technical SEO | | Hermski

0
Creating in-text links with ' 'target=_blank' - helping/hurting SEO!?!

Good Morning Mozzers, I have a question regarding a new linking strategy I'm trying to implement at my organization. We publish 'digital news magazines' that oftentimes have in-text links that point to external sites. More recently, the editorial department and me (SEO) conferred on some ways to reduce our bounce rate and increase time on page. One of the suggestions I offered is to add the 'target=_blank" attribute to all the links so that site visitors don't necessarily have to leave the site in order to view the link. It has, however, come to my attention that this can have some very negative effects on my SEO program, most notably, (fake or inaccurate) time(s) on-page. Is this an advisable way to create in-text links? Are there any other negative effects that I can expect from implementing such a strategy?
Technical SEO | | NiallSmith

0
Has Google stopped rendering author snippets on SERP pages if the author's G+ page is not actively updated?

Working with a site that has multiple authors and author microformat enabled. The image is rendering for some authors on SERP page and not for others. Difference seems to be having an updated G+ page and not having a constantly updating G+ page. any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | irvingw

0