How to deal with old, indexed hashbang URLs?
-
I inherited a site that used to be in Flash and used hashbang URLs (i.e. www.example.com/#!page-name-here). We're now off of Flash and have a "normal" URL structure that looks something like this: www.example.com/page-name-here
Here's the problem: Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index. These URLs still work because the web server doesn't actually read anything that comes after the hash. So, when the web server sees this URL www.example.com/#!page-name-here, it basically renders this page www.example.com/# while keeping the full URL structure intact (www.example.com/#!page-name-here). Hopefully, that makes sense. So, in Google you'll see this URL indexed (www.example.com/#!page-name-here), but if you click it you essentially are taken to our homepage content (even though the URL isn't exactly the canonical homepage URL...which s/b www.example.com/).
My big fear here is a duplicate content penalty for our homepage. Essentially, I'm afraid that Google is seeing thousands of versions of our homepage. Even though the hashbang URLs are different, the content (ie. title, meta descrip, page content) is exactly the same for all of them. Obviously, this is a typical SEO no-no. And, I've recently seen the homepage drop like a rock for a search of our brand name which has ranked #1 for months. Now, admittedly we've made a bunch of changes during this whole site migration, but this #! URL problem just bothers me. I think it could be a major cause of our homepage tanking for brand queries.
So, why not just 301 redirect all of the #! URLs? Well, the server won't accept traditional 301s for the #! URLs because the # seems to screw everything up (server doesn't acknowledge what comes after the #).
I "think" our only option here is to try and add some 301 redirects via Javascript. Yeah, I know that spiders have a love/hate (well, mostly hate) relationship w/ Javascript, but I think that's our only resort.....unless, someone here has a better way?
If you've dealt with hashbang URLs before, I'd LOVE to hear your advice on how to deal w/ this issue.
Best,
-G
-
Celts,
Did you ever resolve this? What you were discussing back in 2012 is called a "hashbang", and you can learn more about it here on Google. It is technically a way to get AJAX-loaded pages indexed on their own URL.
You asked this question a couple of years ago, and things have changed since then with push states and HTML 5 being preferred over hashbangs, and not loading a page's content with AJAX still the recommendation when possible.
-
Thanks for your answer. Yeah, I've seen the hash tag function as you've described it when being used for named anchors. However, in my case, Google IS indexing the URLs that contain the #! and it is also grabbing my homepage's title and using it in the SERPs on those results. So, given that that's happening, I'm concerned that the #! IS hurting me in this case.
In thinking more about this, I think what I'll do is put a canonical tag on the homepage and that should hopefully provide the extra guidance/insurance that I need to tell spiders that there is only ONE version of the homepage.
-
Google ignores the hash tag when indexing URLs. You can offer your home page with various versions of hash tags appended to the end of the URL and Google will not mind a bit. It will not case any issue for SEO.
A few more notes:
- Hash tags are used in HTML as an onpage anchor. Wikipedia is a good example. Take a look at the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar. If you hover over the HISTORY link in the Table of Contents at the top of the page, notice the URL for the HISTORY link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar#History. When you click the link, you remain on the same page but move to the History part of the page.
If you search Google.com for "Guitar History" you will notice the WIki page is listed first. (see attachment). The URL offered by Google is the page URL without any hash tag. Google does offer the ability to "Jump to History" which includes the hash tag link. That is a benefit to using anchor text on a page. Otherwise Google does not take the hash tag nor anything after it into account when indexing pages.
Rand offers a short video on this exact topic: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-using-the-hash
I am not familiar with the exclamation point (bang) being used after the hash tag outside of twitter. The standard twitter URLs use it.
Summary - the hash bag is not the reason for your recent drop in rankings.
I am unclear what you mean by "Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index." Can you share an example?
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
-
MOZ is showing that I have non- indexed blog tag posts are they supposed to be nonindexed. My articles are indexed just not the blog tags that take you to other similar articles do I need to fix this or is it ok?
MOZ is showing that my blog post tags are not indexed my question is should they be indexed? my articles are indexed just not the tags that take you to posts that are similar. Do I need to fix this or not? Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tyler58910 -
Mobile indexing and tabs
Hello, With the new mobile indexing 1 st do search engine (google) give as much value to content in tabs and no visible in the 1 st place as content which is visible on the page ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Reuse an old juicy URL or create a new with the best practices?
I'm optimizing a site with all new URL`s, categories, titles, descriptions. All URL's will change but I've old URLs with a lot of backlinks, SEO juice. What is better for SEO with them: 1 - Change those URLs and 301 redirect traffic to the new page.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tiedemann_Anselm
2 - Keep the URL and work just on new title, description, etc. In option 1 I understand that I'll lose some SEO juice because of the redirect, but the new URL will be correct. In option 2 everything will be strong except from the URL that will make less sense than with option 1. It will not exactly match the product name, title. It`s a reuse of a strong URL.0 -
After blog URL structure change, should you wait to optimize old posts?
Hi all, I'm changing the URL structure on my site's blog (getting rid of dates) soon, but I'm also working on updating/optimizing a bunch of old posts. Some of these old posts have a good amount of traffic, which I don't want to lose when I redirect the old URLs to the new URLs after restructure. I know that you are more likely to maintain your rank and traffic after a redirect if you keep the page content the exact same. So my question is -- should I leave the old posts alone (not making any changes) for a couple of weeks after the URL restructure/redirects for Google to index the new URLs and see that the content is the exact same so the pages don't lose any traffic, OR does it not really matter because I am optimizing these posts, meaning that the content will be better and hopefully get ranked higher? I haven't been able to find a consensus on this, so I'd really appreciate the advice! Many thanks, Rebecca
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rwhite10 -
Many New Urls at once
Hi, I have about 5,000 new URLs to publish. For SEO/Google - Should I publish them gradually, or all at once is fine? *By the way - all these URLs were already indexed in the past, but then redirected. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | viatrading10 -
Google indexing wrong pages
We have a variety of issues at the moment, and need some advice. First off, we have a HUGE indexing issue across our entire website. Website in question: http://www.localsearch.com.au/ Firstly
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | localdirectories
In Google.com.au, if you search for 'plumbers gosford' (https://www.google.com.au/#q=plumbers+gosford), the wrong page appears - in this instance, the page ranking should be http://www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Plumbers I can see this across the board, across multiple locations. Secondly
Recently I've seen Google reporting in 'Crawl Errors' in webmaster tools URLs such as:
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Saunders-Beach,QLD/Electronic-Equipment-Sales-Repairs&Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA This is an invalid URL, and more specifically, those query strings seem to be referrer queries from Google themselves: &Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA Here's the above example indexed in Google: https://www.google.com.au/#q="AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA" Does anyone have any advice on those 2 errors?0 -
Yoast SEO Plugin: To Index or Not to index Categories?
Taking a poll out there......In most cases would you want to index or NOT index your category pages using the Yoast SEO plugin?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webestate0 -
Changing URL Structure
We are going to be relaunching our website with a new URL structure. My question is, how is it best to deal with the migration process in terms of old URLS appearing whilst we launch the new ones. How best should we launch the new structure, considering we've in the region of 10,000 pages currently indexed in Google.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NeilTompkins0