Hash URLs
-
Hi Mozzers,
Happy Friday! I have a client that has created some really nice pages from their old content and we want to redirect the old ones to the new pages. The way the web developers have built these new pages is to use hashbang url's for example www.website.co.uk/product#newpage
My question is can I redirect urls to these kind of pages? Would it be using the .htaccess file to do it?
Thanks in advance,
Karl
-
Just wanted to clear up a bit of confusion. There is a difference between what can be redirected and what will be indexed by search engines.
It is absolutely possible to redirect the old URL to the new one that includes the local anchor (hash). In this way, user experience is preserved as for example, the old "what is matcha" page can be redirected directly to the new "what is matcha" tab, landing the user exactly where they expect to be. This is done in .htaccess as normal, but don't forget to escape the # symbol in the URL when you write the redirect.
But as Schwaab says, Google will index all the tabs' content as if they were all one page. If you look at the page source for any of those the tabbed pages, you'll see it's actually one primary page that includes separate sections for each tab - you can use GWT's Fetch as Googlebot to confirm this. So getting the main URL indexed means all the tabs' content are indexed, just not under separate URLs.
Having separate pages each targeting different but related matcha-related keywords can be beneficial, but so can having a single, longer-content, authoritative page with many more incoming links (as would be the case if the old separate pages were redirected to one primary page, consolidating all their separate link authority). That becomes a judgment call and is where the "art of SEO" come into play
Hope that helps?
Paul
P.S. Little quirk of local anchor URLs. If you're adding parameters to them such as Google Analytics tracking for incoming links, you need to add the hash after the parameters, or the local anchor won't work. e.g. mysite.com#localanchor becomes mysite.com?utmsource=foo&utm_medium=foo&utm_campaign=bar#localanchor
-
Good luck!
-
I thought that'd be the case! trying to get the developers to create unique pages and try and keep a similar/same design, not sure if it'll be too difficult though. Thanks for the advice though, fingers crossed we'll find a solution.
-
I misunderstood you before, I thought you meant the old URLs had the anchors.
You are correct, technically the tabs are not unique pages. You would have to redirect each of the previous pages to http://www.teapigs.co.uk/tea/matcha_shop rather than to the anchored URL.
Having content under tabs may limit your ability to rank for a variety of keywords. For example, if previously there was a page ranking for "What is Matcha?", it may now be difficult to rank for this term because there is no longer a unique page dedicated to the topic. You lose the ability to have a unique URL, Title Tag, Meta Description, H1, and so on.
-
Hi Schwaab,
Thanks for the reply. Google hasn't cached the new pages.
For example, the old page is http://www.teapigs.co.uk/customer/pages/matcha/what-is-matcha and the new content sits on http://www.teapigs.co.uk/tea/matcha_shop with the different tabs. Are we going to have to make them actual pages with static URL's for them to be crawled and indexed? Got a feeling we will!
-
Is the content technically on one page (ww.website.co.uk/product) and just being displays based on the anchor in the URL?
Has Google indexed the anchored URLs? In my experience Google does not index anchored URLs.
I'd love to see an example to see how it is coded; however, if they are just anchored URLs displaying content that is all located on one page, the products page, then the products page would be the only page you can redirect. Technically, anchored URLs are not unique pages.
If the content is being generated with AJAX and your developers are using the hashbang method to serve a unique URL, I don't believe you would see the hash in the URL.
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
-
URL indexed but not submitted in sitemap, however the URL is in the sitemap
Dear Community, I have the following problem and would be super helpful if you guys would be able to help. Cheers Symptoms : On the search console, Google says that some of our old URLs are indexed but not submitted in sitemap However, those URLs are in the sitemap Also the sitemap as been successfully submitted. No error message Potential explanation : We have an automatic cache clearing process within the company once a day. In the sitemap, we use this as last modification date. Let's imagine url www.example.com/hello was modified last time in 2017. But because the cache is cleared daily, in the sitemap we will have last modified : yesterday, even if the content of the page did not changed since 2017. We have a Z after sitemap time, can it be that the bot does not understands the time format ? We have in the sitemap only http URL. And our HTTPS URLs are not in the sitemap What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZozoMe0 -
Optimizing A Homepage URL That Is Only Accessible To Logged In Users
I have a client who has a very old site with lots and lots of links to it. The site offers www.examplesite.com/loggedin as the homepage to logged in users. So, once you're logged in, you can't get back to examplesite.com anymore (unless you log out) and are instead given /loggedin as your new personalized homepage. The problem is that many users over time who linked to the site linked to the site they saw after they signed up and were logged in.... www.examplesite.com/loggedin. So, there's all these inbound links going to a page that is inaccessible to non-logged-in users. Thus linking to nowheresville. One idea is to fire off a 301 to non-logged in users, forwarding them to the homepage. Thus capturing much of that stranded link juice. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure you can fire off a server code conditioned on if they are logged in or not. I imagine you can, but don't know that for a technical fact. Another idea is to offer some content on /loggedin that is right now mostly currently blank, except for an offer to sign in. Which do you think is better and why? Thanks... Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
URL Parameters, Forms & SEO
Hi I have some pages on the site which have a quote form, in my site crawl I see these showing as duplicate content - my webmaster says this isn't the case, but I'm not sure. Landing page - https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs Page with form - https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs?quote-form - this also somehow has a canonical on it pointing to https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs?quote-form Which neither of us have added. I'm thinking we need to get the canonical needs to be updated to https://www.key.co.uk/en/key/high-esd-chairs Is it worth doing this for all these pages or am I worrying about nothing? Becky
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Url structure of a blog
We are trying to work out what the best structure for our blog is as we want each page to rank as highly as possible, we were looking at a flat structure similar to http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/ where every posts is after the blog/ but not in category's although the viewers can look in different category's from the top buttons on the page- photoshop - icons etc or we where going to go for the structured way- blog/photoshop/blog-post.html the only problem is that we will end up 4 deep at least with this and at least 80 characters in the url. any help would be appreciated. Thanks Shaun
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
How Long Before a URL is 'Too Long'
Hello Mozzers, Two of the sites I manage are currently in the process of merging into one site and as a result, many of the URLs are changing. Nevertheless (and I've shared this with my team), I was under the impression that after a certain point, Google starts to discount the validity of URLs that are too long. With that, if I were to have a URL that was structured as follows, would that be considered 'too long' if I'm trying to get the content indexed highly within Google? Here's an example: yourdomain.com/content/content-directory/article and in some cases, it can go as deep as: yourdomain.com/content/content-directory/organization/article. Albeit there is no current way for me to shorten these URLs is there anything I can do to make sure the content residing on a similar path is still eligible to rank highly on Google? How would I go about achieving this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NiallSmith0 -
Which URL structure is much better?
Hi Everybody, Which URL structure is much better? Type 01. http://www.domain.com/category-a/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cprasad
http://www.domain.com/category-a/subcategory-a-1/
http://www.domain.com/category-a/subcategory-a-2/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/subcategory-b-1/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/subcategory-b-2/ Type 02. http://www.domain.com/category-a/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-a-1/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-a-2/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-b-1/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-b-2/ How these 2 types can affect for Ranking, Site Links in Google and passing PR from root to other pages? Thanks Prasad0 -
Is it OK to have a site that has some URLs with hyphens and other, older, legacy URLs that use underscores?
I'm working with a VERY large site that has recently been redesigned/recategorized. They kept only about 20% of the URLs from the legacy site, the URLs that had revenue tied to them, and these URLs use underscores. Whereas the new URLs created for the site use hyphens. I don't think that this would be an issue for Google, as long as the pages are of quality, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this. Will it hurt me to have two different sets of URLs, those with using hyphens and those using underscores?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Business.com0 -
From an SEO Standpoint, which is better for my product category URLs?
With our e-commerce store, we can customize the URL for the product categories, so we could have: http://www.storename.com/product-category-keywords/ or http://www.storename.com/product-category-keywords.html From an SEO standpoint (or even from a "trying to get links" standpoint), which would be better to have? I feel like having a *.html category page would be easier for link building, but that's just my personal feelings. Side Note: Our product pages are: http://www.storename.com/product-name.html Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fenderseo0