Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
-
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture.
The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the
Home Page - Converse.com
Marimekko category page (flash version)
http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko
Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled)
http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko
Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes
http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php
The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google.
When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page.
-----
Marimekko - Converse
All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ...
www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached
So my issues are…
Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages?
Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages?
Any recommendations on to what to do about this?
Thanks,
SEOsurfer
-
Tom,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the site and giving a detailed response. I’ve been doing some research myself and my findings mirror your assessment. Thank you for recommended action items too. Converse uses http://www.asual.com/swfaddress/ which is a good site experience but as you pointed out not so hot for SEO.
--SEOsurfer
-
Great question!
Firstly - unfortunately, Steve's suggestion isn't going to be viable for you. The # portion of the URL is not available to your code server-side, so you won't be able to determine where the rel canonical should point.
Furthermore, if they are committed to keeping the flash for now, and all as a single unit so one URL (the homepage), then you are going to have to accept that some juice intended for subpages is going to go to the homepage. You cannot do anything about that aspect, so you need to focus on the rest of the problem. However, whilst far from ideal, at least the juice is hitting the site somehow.
So… what to do?
Firstly, I'd start getting into the mindset of thinking in terms of the HTML site as the main/canonical site, and the Flash site as the 'enhanced experience' version. In this way, the HTML version is going to be the version that should be crawled by Google, and should be linked to.
Actions:
- Setup detection for mobile user-agents (out of preference I'd say all, but at least those known not to support flash, such as iPhone/iPad) and search engine bots, and ensure they get served the HTML version. Currently your homepage requires a click through on iPad offering an impossible Flash download, why not serve them the HTML page off the bat.
Is this cloaking? No! The HTML version is the main version, remember? It's no more cloaking than if you detected the user agent and then chose to serve the Flash version to Googlebot.
I actually discussed this with Jane Copeland at the fantastic Distilled link building event a couple of weeks back, and she agreed with me and said if it would stand up to a manual inspection then it is the right course of action.
-
Get all links in articles, press releases, directories or whatever else that are linking to specific pages and are originating from in house (or any source you have control over) to link to the HTML pages.
-
If the user arrives, has Flash and has arrived to an HTML link, you can now redirect to the Flash link for that page so they get the 'enhanced experience'. Don't use a 301 redirect -- remember the HTML version is the main version!
-
If the user arrives via a Flash link, but doesn't have Flash, but does have javascript you can detect the # variable and redirect them to the HTML page to help them along.
-
Educate the relevant stakeholders regarding point 2. I see you have a 'flashmode=0' option, tell them about this and how to use it get the URLs they need.
So where does this leave us?
-
The search engines can crawl all your lovely content, and they can ignore the flash version completely.
-
You are getting inbound links to specific pages. These pages have their own titles and meta descriptions… and content! Because they are the real site!
-
Users with Flash arriving via these links are landing on the correct Flash page of the site and are experiencing the rich site that you want them to.
-
Users arriving without Flash are getting the correct page if they arrive via an HTML URL. If they arrive via a Flash url then they get the correct page if they have javascript on (e.g iPad users), or they get the fallback of the homepage (rare).
I had a client with an almost identical situation, and I rolled out an almost identical solution to this, and they got crawled very quickly, shot up in Google and have stayed there for months.
Hope it helps. Let us know how you get on!
-
It's definitely a drag to have your links diluted between 2 versions of the site. There are a few solutions you can use, but the easiest would probably be to start using the rel=canonical tag on the flash version which points back to the same or similar page on the HTML site. That way, the engines know that the version you want indexed is the HTML version.
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
-
Recently migrated to https version of volusion site. 301 redirect link chain question
I recently migrated to a https version of a volusion site. They have some type of internal 301 redirect method to accommodate for the entire site. I have also used the 301 redirect manager to redirect categories and pages which I have changed. The question is if I have changed a page internally in the redirect manager from say source. /bluewidget to say. target. /superbluewidget is it wiser or even possible to do it this way to reduce the redirect chain from 3 to 2 steps source. /bluewidget to. target https://www.example/superbluewidget can a relative link be targeted to a full url to reduce steps in a 301 redirect link chain. Thanks
Technical SEO | | mrkingsley0 -
Migrating Http Site to Https Version
Hello, This coming weekend we will be changing our http sites to https versions. I have a very quick question regarding Google Search Console. Because the migration is happening over a weekend, we want to get as much as possible setup beforehand. Is there any risk to adding the new properties to the search console without the sites being live yet? I want to deliver the Search Console verify files to our IT team in advance for them to add to the site, and then once I get the okay that the migration went successfully, I would go into the Search Console and click on the Verify button to get the sites verified and of course, then fetch as Google to help speed up indexing a bit and ensure there are no errors. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated! Amiee
Technical SEO | | Amiee0 -
Bing is not Indexing my site.
Hi, My website is four months old and has more than 8000 pages. Bing has indexed only 8 pages till date and Google also keeps playing hide and seek with it. There was a time when google indexed almost all the pages of my site but now there are only 5000 pages indexed. Moreover when I check my site on google (by typing site:socktail.com), it shows only 26 pages. Please let me know what should I do. If somebody wants to take a look, my website is http://socktail.com Thanks
Technical SEO | | saurabh19050 -
Redirecting a old aged site to a new exact match site?
Hi All, I have a question. I have 2 sites with me in the same sector and want some help. site 1 is a old site started back in 2003 and has some amount of links to it and has a pr 3 with some good links to it but doesn't rank much for any keywords for the timing. site 2 is a aged domain but newly developed with unique content and has a good amount of exact match with a .com version. so will there be any benefit by redirecting site 1 to site 2 to get the seo benefits and a start for link bulding? or is it best to develop and work on each site? the sector is health insurance. Thanks
Technical SEO | | macky71 -
How can I prevent duplicate content between www.page.com/ and www.page.com
SEOMoz's recent crawl showed me that I had an error for duplicate content and duplicate page titles. This is a problem because it found the same page twice because of a '/' on the end of one url. e.g. www.page.com/ vs. www.page.com My question is do I need to be concerned about this. And is there anything I should put in my htaccess file to prevent this happening. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | onlineexpression
Karl0 -
Should I be redirecting a .gov.au domain to a .com/.com.au Marketing URL?
Hi everyone, First time post - what a great community! On a trial at the moment but will definitely be signing up to PRO. The situation I'm helping to promote an event in Australia (lets call it "myevent"). The event also goes by a nickname "myev" (which isn't searched as much as "myevent"). The event for the most part is promoted offline as www.myevent.com. As it currently stands (and appears to have been the case for a number of years), www.myevent.com and www.myevent.com.au 302 redirect to www.mylocation.gov.au/myev The event is pretty much number 1 for keywords around "my event" and "myev", despite little attention being paid to on page optimisation and issues around duplicate content which I intend to fix. The domain being indexed by Google is www.mylocation.gov.au/myev . Open site explorer stats Open Site explorer shows www.mylocation.gov.au/myev as having a strong domain authority, and hundreds of backlinks. www.myevent.com and www.myevent.com.au have domain authorities in the 20s and about 30-40 backlinks each. The conundrum I've had a chat with the IT guys running the site(s) and they mentioned they'll be switching the way the redirects work, so everything goes to www.myevent.com NOT the .gov.au URL. I've done a bit of reading on the forums and understand that 301s should be used in order to pass the juice/authority from the existing domain (in this case www.location.gov.au/mye). I understand not all of this will be passed. What I'm not sure about is which URL should be the final preferred destination. I may not have a choice - www.myevent.com has been the preferred URL for a long time - but want to know if this will affect the performance in search results if the .com.au isn't used as the final destination (even though we would be redirecting from it)? Any suggestions / ideas / help would be most appreciated. I hope this all makes sense - I'm relatively new to the whole SEO world! Best wishes and many thanks.
Technical SEO | | hergs0 -
Will 301 redirecting a site multiple times still preserve the original site value?
Hi, All! If site www.abc.com was already 301 redirected to site www.def.com, and now the site owner wants to redirect www.def.com to www.ghi.com - is there any concern that it's not going to work, and some of the original linkjuice, rank, trust, etc. is going to vanish? Or as long as the 301s are set up right, should you be able to 301 indefinitely? Does anyone have any experience with actually doing this and seeing good/bad/neutral results? Thanks in advance! -Aviva B
Technical SEO | | debi_zyx0 -
Site revision
our site has complete redesign including site architecture, page url and page content (except domain). It looks like a new site. The old site has been indexed about thirty thousand results by google. now what should i do first?
Technical SEO | | jallenyang0