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
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
-
Internal link is creating duplicate content issues and generating 404s from website crawl.
Not sure what the best way to describe it but the site is built with Elementor page builder. We are finding out that a feature that is included with a pop modal window renders an HTML code as so: Click So when crawled I think the crawling is linking itself for some reason so the crawl returns something like this: xyz.com/builder/listing/ - what we want what we don't want xyz.com/builder/listing/ xyz.com/builder/listing/%23elementor-action%3Aaction%3Dpopup%3Aopen%26settings%3DeyJpZCI6Ijc2MCIsInRvZ2dsZSI6ZmFsc2V9/ xyz.com/builder/listing/%23elementor-action%3Aaction%3Dpopup%3Aopen%26settings%3DeyJpZCI6Ijc2MCIsInRvZ2dsZSI6ZmFsc2V9//%23elementor-action%3Aaction%3Dpopup%3Aopen%26settings%3DeyJpZCI6Ijc2MCIsInRvZ2dsZSI6ZmFsc2V9/ so you'll notice how that string in the HREF is appended each time and it loops a couple times. Could I 301 this issue, what's the best way to go about handling something like this? It's causing duplicate meta descriptions/content errors for some listing pages we have. I did add a rel='nofollow' to the anchor tag with JavaScript but not sure if that'll help.
Technical SEO | | JoseG-LP0 -
What server issues might cause temporary and repeated Soft 404/500 Errors that appear to be functioning correctly when checked later from Google Webmaster Tools?
We are experiencing unknown server issues (we think) which are causing Soft 404/500 errors at unpredictable times on 2 websites. When we check on the pages, they’re fine but still show errors in Moz/Search Console. What are some measures we can take to protect from this or figure out what is causing this? Example URL for Soft 404 Error: https://www.advancedtraveltherapy.com/jobs/any/occupational-therapist/any/ Example URL for 500 Error: https://www.advancedtraveltherapy.com/job-detail/ms/physical-therapist/87529740/ Example URL for Soft 404 Error: https://www.advancedtravelnursing.com/search/searchresults.php?jobState=CA&tempType=g&specialties= Example URL for 500 Error: https://www.advancedtravelnursing.com/job/ma/registered-nurse/emergency-room/87108662/
Technical SEO | | StaffingRobot0 -
Will a blog post about a collection of useful tools and web resources for a specific niche being seen as negative by google for too many links?
SEO newbie here, I'm thinking about creating a blog post about a collection of useful tools and web resources for my specific niche. It'd be 300 links or more, but with comments, and categorized nicely. It'd be a useful resource for my target audience to bookmark, and share. Will google see this as a negative? If so, what's the best way to do such a blog post? Thanks
Technical SEO | | ericzou0 -
Paid links that are passing link equity from a blog?
We have a well-known blogger in our industry with whom we've had a long-standing relationship. We've had inbound links from his blog for many, many years. Today I noticed that we are running a banner ad listed on all pages of his blog under a heading that says "Sponsors." He has dedicated an entire page of his site giving full disclosure of all advertising. However, all of the links on his site pointing to us are passing link equity. To my knowledge they've been this way ever since they were first established years ago. I am fairly certain this fellow, with whom we have an excellent relationship, neither knows nor cares what a "nofollow" attribute is. I am afraid that if I contact him with a request that he add "nofollow" attributes to all of our links that it will damage our relationship by creating friction. To someone who knows nothing and cares nothing about SEO, asking them to put a "nofollow" on a link could either seem like a technical request they don't know how to handle, or something even potentially "shady" on our part. My question is this: Considering how long these links have been there, is this even worth worrying about? Should I just forget about it and move on to bigger fish, or, is this a potentially serious enough violation of Google Webmaster guidelines that we should pursue getting those links "nofollow" attributes added? I should add that we haven't received any "unnatural" link notifications from Google, ever, and haven't ever engaged in any questionable link-building tactics.
Technical SEO | | danatanseo1 -
Does rel= canonical combine link juice for 2 pages?
If two pages are very similar, and one should rel= canonical to the other, will the page authority pass from the page with rel= canonical to the target page? Also, what happens when you a page rel=canonical's to itself?
Technical SEO | | SkinLaboratory0 -
Do keywords in url parameter count?
I have a client who is on an older ecommerce platform that does not allow url rewrites in anyway. It would cost a ton of money to custom dev a solution. Anyways right now they have set up a parameter on their product urls to at least get the keyword in there. My question is, will this keyword actually be counted since it is in a parameter? An example url is http://domain.com/Catalog.aspx?Level1=01&Level2=02&C=Product-name-here Does this 'product-name-here' count as having the keyword in the url according to google?
Technical SEO | | webfeatseo0 -
Google Cache is not showing in my page
Hello Everyone, I have issue in my Page, My category page (http://www.bannerbuzz.com/custom-vinyl-banners.html) is regular cached in past, but before sometime it can't show the cached result in SERP and not show in cached result , I have also fetch this link in google web master, but can't get the result, it is showing following message. 404. That’s an error. The requested URL /search?q=cache%3A http%3A//www.bannerbuzz.com/custom-vinyl-banners.html was not found on this server. That’s all we know. My category page rank is 2 and its keyword is on first in google.com, so i am little bit worried about this page cache issue, Can someone please tell me why is this happening? Is this a temporary issue? Help me to solve out this cache issue and once again my page will regularly cache in future. Thanks
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
Where to put content on the page? - technical
The new algo update says any images at the top of the page negatively affect user experience if they are adverts? how does google know if its an advert or relevant banner? When trying to put text as far up as possible on the page, is it ok to make it appear higher in the code but appear further down using css? Or does Google not go from the code top to bottom when working this out, more how it renders? Any advice much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | pauledwards0