Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the response! I see your point w/ the watering down of the content...

Are you saying to add them to one of our tabs? I'm not sure how feasible that is because, from what I understand, our platform can only house a limited number of tabs and we currently use them all. Another issue is that we have one platform for multiple brands/sites and we all have to use the same configuration with regards to reviews.

Would you recommend keeping all of the reviews on the same page or adding an additional page (ie Amazon) for the multiple reviews?

Thanks again helping me with this.

Recently, I discovered that only the first 4 reviews on our product pages are crawled and indexed. Example: http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/253432 I'm assuming it's due to the canonical that's on the product page http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/253432" />.

When you click on page 2 of the reviews, the url does not change, but the next batch of reviews appears on the product page. Same with page 3, etc… The problem is the additional pages are not being crawled and indexed.

We have to have the canonical on the product page because our platform creates multiple urls for each product page by including each category where the product resides, related link parameters, etc in the product url (example: http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/patio-furniture/outdoor-furniture/253432) – trust me, it gets ugly!

I've researched other Moz answers and I've found that there appears to be a couple of ways to fix the issue. Any ideas/help/guidance/examples on the below options is greatly appreciated!!!!

1. Show only 4 reviews on the first page and place the remaining reviews on a new page by themselves (similar to how Amazon does it). However, I would rather keep all of the reviews on the product page if possible.
2. Add page 2, page 3, etc parameters to the url to display the remaining reviews and adding  rel=prev/next. If we chose option 2, would each product page have a different canonical? If so, would it create a duplicate content issue since the above-the-fold content, title tag and meta descriptions would all be the same? Also, would you include each additional page in the sitemap?
3. We had a similar issue with our category pages and we implemented the "viewall" in the canonical. Would that work for our reviews?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Hi,

We recently underwent a platform change and unfortunately our updated ecom site was coded using java script. The top navigation is uncrawlable, the pertinent product copy is undetectable and duplicated throughout the code, etc - it needs a lot of work to make it (even somewhat) seo-friendly. We're in the process of implementing ajax #! to our site and I've been tasked with creating a document of items that I will test to see if this solution will help our rankings, indexing, etc (on Google, I've read the issues w/ Bing).

I have 2 questions: 1. Do I need to notify our content team who works on our linking strategy about the new urls? Would we use the #! url (for seo) or would we continue to use the clean url (without the #!) for inbound links?

2. When our site transferred over, we used meta refresh on all of the pages instead of 301s for some reason. Instead of going to a clean url, our meta refresh says this:  . Would I update it to have the #! in the url? Should I try and clean up the meta refresh so it goes to an actual www. url and not this browsererrorview page? Or just push for the 301?

I have read a ton of articles, including GWT docs, but I can't seem to find any solid information on these specific questions so any help I can get would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Oooh no thank you - I'm not a big risk-taker when it comes to SEO. he-he. Thanks again for your help!

Hi John, One more question for you if you don't mind... Creating an html snapshot (as noted in the ajax link) is different than a "serving up an html page" as described here http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66355 ? Is that true?

Hi John,

You're right, I meant JavaScript. Thank you so much for the response. This definitely helps!

Hi, Thanks for the reply. To begin, if you turn off javascript, you can't see any of the content on our pages - not the text, navigation, etc. I'm trying to figure out how to make the content displayable without having to re-do the entire system (which isn't plausible).

Does that make sense? The site is improvementscatalog.com if you want to see it. We're in the process of building content for it, but we just recently switched platforms and these new issues popped up.

Hi, Thanks for the reply. To begin, if you turn off javascript, you can't see any of the content on our pages - not the text, navigation, etc. I'm trying to figure out how to make the content displayable without having to re-do the entire system (which isn't plausible).

Does that make sense? The site is improvementscatalog.com if you want to see it. We're in the process of building content for it, but we just recently switched platforms and these new issues popped up.

Hi,

I have an SEO question that came my way, but it's a bit too technical for me to handle. Our entire ecom site is in java, which apparently writes to a page after it has loaded and is not SEO-friendly.

I was presented with a work-around that would basically consist of us pre redering an html page to search engines and leaving the java page for the customer. It sounds like G's definition of "cloaking" to me, but I wanted to know if anyone has any other ideas or work-arounds (if there are any) on how we can make the java based site more SEO-friendly.

Any thoughts/comments you have would be much appreciated. Thanks!!

This is why I love this forum. We recently started seeing these urls in our GWT report. We have hundreds of truncated urls that end in "..." that go nowhere. We can't figure out where these are coming from. We thought it could be G's relatively new privacy policy w/ not passing along the data, but we're not sure. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Thanks!