Very good to hear, thanks Shawn! The goal is to use absolute canonicals, but for a period of time, we may have to use protocol relative. The redirects in place should avoid any duplicate content issues, which seems to be the big landmine.
Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Posts made by linklater
-
RE: Can I leave off HTTP/HTTPS in a canonical tag?posted in White Hat / Black Hat SEO
-
RE: Can I leave off HTTP/HTTPS in a canonical tag?posted in White Hat / Black Hat SEO
Hey Shawn, did using an unspecified HTTP/HTTPS protocol work for you in the canonical and/or HREF-LANG? We are going through a transition to HTTPS as well, and have multiple systems with some URLs that are hard coded. Hoping this solution would work as a short-term fix, while we update these pages to use a new, more dynamic system.
-
RE: Can we create regional pages on Facebook?posted in Social Media
Yes, it is still possible. I see this features utilized by a number of brands in my vertical.
The redirect is automatic, based on location, and underneath the brand name and segment there's a link with the wording "Redirected from [main_page_name]".
The Like count is shared, and if a user mouses over the "redirected from..." link text they see a pop-up with the header of the primary page.
Definitely do-able, and I would say increasingly popular for major brands with a strong international presence.
Cheers!
-
Pitfalls when implementing the “VARY User-Agent” server responseposted in Intermediate & Advanced SEO
We serve up different desktop/mobile optimized html on the same URL, based on a visitor’s device type.
While Google continue to recommend the HTTP Vary: User-Agent header for mobile specific versions of the page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va6qtaiZRHg), we’re also aware of issues raised around CDN caching; http://searchengineland.com/mobile-site-configuration-the-varies-header-for-enterprise-seo-163004 / http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2249533/How-Googles-Mobile-Best-Practices-Can-Slow-Your-Site-Down / http://orcaman.blogspot.com/2013/08/cdn-caching-problems-vary-user-agent.html
As this is primarily for Google's benefit, it's been proposed that we only returning the Vary: User-Agent header when a Google user agent is detected (Googlebot/MobileBot/AdBot).
So here's the thing: as the server header response is not “content” per se I think this could be an okay solution, though wanted to throw it out there to the esteemed Moz community and get some additional feedback.
You guys see any issues/problems with implementing this solution?
Cheers!
linklater