Does Google pass link juice a page receives if the URL parameter specifies content and has the Crawl setting in Webmaster Tools set to NO?
-
The page in question receives a lot of quality traffic but is only relevant to a small percent of my users. I want to keep the link juice received from this page but I do not want it to appear in the SERPs.
-
Update - Google has crawled this correctly and is returning the correct, redirected page. Meaning, it seems to have understood that we don't want any of the parametered versions indexed ("return representative link") from our original page and all of its campaign-tracked brethren, and is then redirecting from the representative link correctly.
And finally there was peace in the universe...for now. ;> Tim
-
Agree...it feels like leaving a bit to chance, but I'll keep an eye on it over the next few weeks to see what comes of it. We seem to be re-indexed every couple of days, so maybe I can test it out Monday.
BTW, this issue really came up when we were creating a server side 301 redirect for the root URL, and then I got to wondering if we'd need to set up an irule for all parameters. Hopefully not...hopefully Google will figure it out for us.
Thanks Peter. Tim
-
It's really tough to say, but moving away from "Let Google decide" to a more definitive choice seems like a good next step. You know which URL should be canonical, and it's not the parameterized version (if I'm understanding correctly).
If you say "Let Google decide", it seems a bit more like rel=prev/next. Google may allow any page in the set to rank, BUT they won't treat those pages as duplicates, etc. How does this actually impact the PR flow to any given page in that series? We have no idea. They're probably consolidating them on the fly, to some degree. They basically have to be, since the page they choose to rank form the set is query-dependent.
-
This question deals with dynamically created pages, it seems, and Google seems to recommend NOT choosing the "no" option in WMT - choose "yes" when you edit the parameter settings for this and you'll see an option for your case, I think, Christian (I know this is 3 years late, but still).
BUT I have a situation where we use SiteCatalyst to create numerous tracking codes as parameters to a URL. Since there is not a new page being created, we are following Google's advice to select "no" - apparently will:
"group the duplicate URLs into one cluster and select what we think is the "best" URL to represent the cluster in search results. We then consolidate properties of the URLs in the cluster, such as link popularity, to the representative URL."
What worries me is that a) the "root" URL will not be returned, somehow (perhaps due to freakish amount of inbound linking to one of our parametered URLs), and b) the root URL will not be getting the juice. The reason we got suspicious about this problem in the first place was that Google was returning one of our parametered URLs (PA=45) instead of the "root" URL (PA=58).
This may be an anomaly that will be sorted out now that we changed the parameter setting from "Let Google Decide" to "No, page does not change" i.e. return the "Representative" link, but would love your thoughts - esp on the juice passage.
Tim
-
This sounds unusual enough that I'd almost have to see it in action. Is the JS-based URL even getting indexed? This might be a non-issue, honestly. I don't have solid evidence either way about GWT blocking passing link-juice, although I suspect it behaves like a canonical in most cases.
-
I agree. The URL parameter option seems to be the best solution since this is not a unique page. It is the main page with javascript that calls for additional content to be displayed in the form of a lightbox overlay if the condition is right. Since it is not an actual page, I cannot add the rel-canonical statement to the header. It is not clear however, whether the link juice will be passed with this parameter setting in Webmaster Tools.
-
If you're already use rel-canonical, then there's really no reason to also block the parameter. Rel-canonical will preserve any link-juice, and will also keep the page available to visitors (unlike a 301-redirect).
Are you seeing a lot of these pages indexed (i.e. is the canonical tag not working)? You could block the parameter in that case, but my gut reaction is that it's unnecessary and probably counter-productive. Google may just need time to de-index (it can be a slow process).
I suspect that Google passes some link-juice through blocked parameters and treats it more like a canonical, but it may be situational and I haven't seen good data on that. So many things in Google Webmaster Tools end up being a bit of a black box. Typically, I view it as a last resort.
-
I can just repeat myself: Set Crawl to yes and use rel canonical with website.com/?v3 pointing to website.com
-
My fault for not being clear.
I understand that the rel=canonical cannot be added to the robot.txt file. We are already using the canonical statement.
I do not want to add the page with the url parameter to the robot.txt file as that would prevent the link juice from being passed.
Perhaps this example will help clarify:
URL = website.com
ULR parameter = website.com/?v3
website.com/?v3 has a lot of backlinks. How can I pass the link juice to website.com and Not have website.com/?v3 appear in the SERP"s?
-
I'm getting a bit lost with your explanation, maybe it would be easier if I saw the urls, but here"s a brief:
I would not use parameters at all. Cleen urls are best for seo, remove everything not needed. You definately don't need an url parameter to indicate that content is unique for 25%of traffic. (I got a little bit lost here: how can a content be unique for just part of your traffic. If it is found elsewhere on your pae it is not unique, if it is not found elswehere, it is unique) So anyway those url parameters do not indicate nothing to google, just stuff your url structure with useles info (for google) so why use them?
I am already using a link rel=canonical statement. I don't want to add this to the robots.txt file as that would prevent the juice from being passed.
I totally don't get this one. You can't add canonical to robots.txt. This is not a robots.txt statement.
To sum up: If you do not want your parametered page to appear in the serps than as I said: Set Crawl to yes! and use rel canonical. This way page will no more apperar in serps, but will be available for readers and will pass link juice.
-
The parameter to this URL specifies unique content for 25% of my traffic to the home page. If I use a 301 redirect than those people will not see the unique content that is relevant to them. But since this parameter is only relevant to 25% of my traffic, I would like the main URL displayed in the SERPs rather then the unique one.
Google's Webmaster Tools let you choose how you would Google to handle URL parameters. When using this tool you must specify the parameters effect on content. You can then specify what you would like googlebot to crawl. If I say NO crawl, I understand that the page with this parameter will not be crawled but will the link juice be passed to the page without the parameter?
I am already using a link rel=canonical statement. I don't want to add this url parameter to the robots.txt file either as that would prevent the juice from being passed.
What is the best way to keep this parameter and pass the juice to the main page but not have the URL parameter displayed in the SERPs?
-
What do you men by url parameter specifies content?
If a page is not crawled it definately won't pass link juice. Set Crawl to yes and use rel canonical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm9onOGTgeM
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
-
Dropdown content on page being crawled
Hi, will the content within a dropdown on a page be crawled? I.e. if the page visitor has to click to reveal the content as a dropdown will it be crawled by bots. Thanks
Technical SEO | | BillSCC1 -
WebMaster Tools keeps showing old 404 error but doesn't show a "Linked From" url. Why is that?
Hello Moz Community. I have a question about 404 crawl errors in WebmasterTools, a while ago we had an internal linking problem regarding some links formed in a wrong way (a loop was making links on the fly), this error was identified and fixed back then but before it was fixed google got to index lots of those malformed pages. Recently we see in our WebMaster account that some of this links still appearing as 404 but we currently don't have that issue or any internal link pointing to any of those URLs and what confuses us even more is that WebMaster doesn't show anything in the "Linked From" tab where it usually does for this type of errors, so we are wondering what this means, could be that they still in google's cache or memory? we are not really sure. If anyone has an idea of what this errors showing up now means we would really appreciate the help. Thanks. jZVh7zt.png
Technical SEO | | revimedia1 -
Google showing https:// page in search results but directing to http:// page
We're a bit confused as to why Google shows a secure page https:// URL in the results for some of our pages. This includes our homepage. But when you click through it isn't taking you to the https:// page, just the normal unsecured page. This isn't happening for all of our results, most of our deeper content results are not showing as https://. I thought this might have something to do with Google conducting searches behind secure pages now, but this problem doesn't seem to affect other sites and our competitors. Any ideas as to why this is happening and how we get around it?
Technical SEO | | amiraicaew0 -
Can I have an http AND a https site on Google Webmaster tools
My website is https but the default property that was configured on Google WMT was http and wasn't showing me any information because of that. I added an https property for that, but my question is: do I need to delete the original HTTP or can I leave both websites?
Technical SEO | | Onboard.com0 -
Page Content
Our site is a home to home moving listing portal. Consumers who wants to move his home fills a form so that moving companies can cote prices. We were generating listing page URL’s by using the title submitted by customer. Unfortunately we have understood by now that many customers have entered exactly same title for their listings which has caused us having hundreds of similar page title. We have corrected all the pages which had similar meta tag and duplicate page title tags. We have also inserted controls to our software to prevent generating duplicate page title tags or meta tags. But also the page content quality not very good because page content added by customer.(example: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve--6001) What should I do. Please help me.
Technical SEO | | iskq0 -
How to structure rich / multi-media on Category pages to pass the link juice?
Fellow SEOs, I'm trying to add videos, blog posts and new fun articles/top 10s/party tips etc to corresponding categories for a costume site. Some of the content I want on these category pages already exists on our blog, the videos are hosted on YouTube and some of the content hasn't been created yet. We're thinking of posting snippets of the articles that link to the full versions vs. displaying the entire pieces on the cat pages.We're also thinking of a 'view all cool content' under the snippets that brings you to a page similar to : www.site.com/pirate-costumes/funideas and it would list everything we have for media for that category - i obviously just want to do what's best for the user but also what will maintain the juice from the media on into the category pages - Another issue would be duplicate content issues arising from posting snippets and/or the same copy that also lives on the blog...**Can someone please help here? Would _really _appreciate it.****Thank you! **Troy
Technical SEO | | Troyville0 -
Does this page crawl well?
I just put up a page that uses an image map to illustrate a national currency note. http://www.antiquebanknotes.com/NationalCurrency/National-Bank-Note-Information.aspx My goal with this page is get results for National Bank Note. But I know image maps are wierd creatures and not good for linking. My question is, will Google index my tooltips and find this page useful and therefore worthy? I think the content is useful for my users but I just don't know if the implementation will work well. This screen will eventually have 5 or 6 notes on it and I don't want to do it the concensus is negative... Thanks for any advice.
Technical SEO | | Banknotes0 -
Internal Linking: Site-wide VS Content Links
I just watched this video in which Matt Cutts talks about the ancient 100 links per page limit. I often encounter websites which have massive navigation (elaborate main menu, side bar, footer, superfooter...etc) in addition to content area based links. My question is do you think Google passes votes (PageRank and anchor text) differently from template links such as navigation to the ones in the content area, if so have you done any testing to confirm?
Technical SEO | | Dan-Petrovic0