Problem of printer friendly version.
-
For one of our client's side, most of the backlinks are going to printer friendly version page. I recommeded to him to use the canonical tag on printer friendly version pointing to other page.
Luckily, while searching i came across this posts at - http://www.seomoz.org/q/solving-printer-friendly-version
The solution recommended was this -
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" media="print" href="our-print-version.css">
My questions are -
1. what should i write in place of our-print-version.css
Should it be print.css ?
2. Where do i place this code ? in which file ?
-
Correct.
Often a site will refer to numerous CSS files. There are tools which will combine multiple CSS files into a single file and properly compress the files to optimize them for page speed.
-
Thanks once again for clarification.
The only question is whether changes need to be made to optimize the code from a SEO or Page Speed perspective.
You mean to say, css code must reside in an external file and linked from page to minimise code.
-
Do i need to 301 printer friendly page ?
No. Your site's visitors need to access the printer friendly page. If you add a 301, then no one will be able to view the print friendly page.
I should also clarify, if your site currently offers a print friendly page and it works, then your programmer has already taken care of the issue from a website functionality perspective. The only question is whether changes need to be made to optimize the code from a SEO or Page Speed perspective.
-
"It would need to be accessible and declared on the printer friendly version page"
That' what i was looking for. I will ask designer to declare this file in printer friendly version page. So, the solutution will be -
We place this code in printer friendly version page -
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" media="print" href="print.css">
print.css will have the css code for print format pages. and print.css will be a separate file
Do i need to 301 printer friendly page ?
-
How the CSS is presented is up to your web designer. It could be a part of the site's main css, or in a separate file. It would need to be accessible and declared on the printer friendly version page.
As part of speed optimizations, all CSS files may be condensed into a single file.
-
Thanks a lot Ryan.
CSS declarations are made in the of your HTML document
i was not sure, that's why i asked this. Should this declaration be made in printer friendly version page ?
-
Hi Atul.
I looked at the Q&A response link you offered. I will try to offer some clarifications:
Where do i place this code ? in which file ?
CSS declarations are made in the of your HTML document
what should i write in place of our-print-version.css
The name of the file which contains the css code for your print format pages
For one of our client's side, most of the backlinks are going to printer friendly version page. I recommended to him to use the canonical tag on printer friendly version pointing to other page.
Your recommendation is sound, and I agree with 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
-
SEO Problems with Loading to a Subfolder?
A client has a single page app website that shows https://example.com/example when you visit https://example.com . I don't think this is a redirect; I think it's a URL rewrite. My questions: Is this setup common with single page apps? What are the SEO benefits or drawbacks of having a domain's homepage load, rewrite, or redirect to a subfolder?
Technical SEO | | Kevin_P0 -
Is this type of navigation SEO friendly?
Hi mozzers, I wanted to know if this type of navigation SEO friendly. Is it better than the regular drop down menu navigation? Thanks! Ug4MhZw.png
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Consistent top 10 in G image search - but a different 'stolen' version every time!
I have a photo that was uploaded back in 2005. It is an aerial shot and has received a fair bit of traffic over the years. I'm pretty sure it was ranked #1 in Google Images for the town name for a while. Now, however, it never ranks. Well actually it does. But every single time it is a version on a different website that is being used without permission.
Technical SEO | | Cornwall
And I'm not talking about one website. Every time I fill out a DMCA and have the image removed only to see a completely different website featuring in the top 10. This has happened 5 times so far and I'm just about to fill out another DMCA request. What is going on? Surely Google in its infinite wisdom is smart enough to check the timestamp or date cues on page to figure out which is the original. These other sites are often complete unknowns compared to my site which is a 12yr old authority site on the subject.
Don't get it!0 -
Local searh results instant preview photo problem
A search result that contains my google plus / places page in the local results is not displaying photos correctly in the preview. It shows an image that appears to represent a broken link or missing image, however, when you click on the "See Photos" link it to takes you to the G+ page that displays the photos without any issues. I also checked the google places account and the photos appear fine in my dashboard. It's seems like maybe a 3rd party uploaded photos or something? It may have to do with the recent upgrade to pages at Google +? (Thats another story, thanks for making me create a circular logo and a cover photo that doesn't style well in your mobile app) Anyway, any thoughts? Where are these photos coming from, plus or places account? I submitted the question on google groups and a non googler told me to submit photos from a unrelated account.. This seems like gaming the system to me and when I looked into it, it takes me to the Google + page.. Search URL - I am first result in local, Yale Creek Seasonal Care. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=new+market+mn+snow+removal&oq=new+market+mn+snow+removal&gs_l=hp.3...1801.1801.0.2686.1.1.0.0.0.0.143.143.0j1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.hp.nKsMdxTGiW0 Also, I noticed the G+ account says service area is 20 miles from address while I specifically selected an area greater than that in my places account.. So what is it plus or places?!?!? The way they are rolling out this move to plus is frustrating! As a consumer, I prefer listings without the plus page!!
Technical SEO | | dwallner0 -
Friendly URL
Can be Friendly URL installed on a custom made jobsite using mod rewrite / apache without any big interference to the system itself? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | tomaz770 -
How do you know what version of your site of Google is in their index?
This is going to sound like a strange question, but I am trying to understand which version of our site is in the index. You might think this is an obvious question, but here is why I am asking: 1. Today I searched for a specific keyword and found the listing. 2. I liked on the right arrow next to the listing and checked the cache date. It says 6/28 and shows the site as of 6/28. 3. I expected to see that we were just indexed as we jumped several pages since yesterday and I had just checked two days ago and we hadn't moved at all. It seems like Google may have taken the changes we made on 7/2 but since it is showing 6/28, I am note sure. Since this is confusing, here is the chronology: 1. Made changes 6/20. 2. Site appeared to be indexed on 6/28. 3. Made changes on 7/2. 4. Checked the site on 7/2 and we were in position 60. Checked the site on 7/4 and we were in position 61. 5.. Checked the site today (7/6) and see we are in position 8. The cache date shows as 6/28. I suspect that Google just indexed us yesterday and is reflecting the changes I made on 7/2. But the fact that it says it was cached on 6/28 seems to sugges otherwise. I want to be sure I know which version got us the good rankings - is there any way to be sure? Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards0 -
Problems with pages loading within seomoz account
any one else have the problem of pages loading once logged into their seomoz account??
Technical SEO | | james1000 -
Meta data in includes: not ideal or a problem?
I have pages with meta data being pulled in via an include. This was to prevent people from touching the pages themselves. Is this an optimization issue- or is it OK to do?
Technical SEO | | Tribeca-Marketing-Group0