Mobile & desktop pages
-
I have a mobile site (m.example.com) and a desktop site (example.com). I want search engines to know that for every desktop page there is a mobile equivalent. To do this I insert a rel=alternate on the desktop pages to the mobile equivalent. On the mobile pages I insert a rel=canonical to it's equivalent desktop page. So far so good BUT:
Almost every desktop page has 4 or 5 copies (duplicate content). I get rid of this issue by using the rel=canonical to the source page. Still no problem here.
But what happens if I insert a rel=alternate to the mobile equivalent on every copy of the source page? I know it sounds stupid but the system doesn't allow me to insert a rel=alternate on just one page. It's all or nothing!
My question:
Does Google ignore the rel=alternate on the duplicate pages but keeps understanding the link between the desktop source page & mobile page ? Or should I avoid this scenario?
Many Thanks
Pieter
-
I would love to see any of it you are willing to share. I am not saying in any way it is an absolute (what is in SEO?), I just worry over not indexing a page for mobile.
Best
-
We did an in-depth study last year to see if setting the mobile pages to "no-index" had any effect. This was done on one of our biggest sites. What we found is that if a site ranks high in desktop results, Google will display the same results in mobile, even if location targeting is turned on in the mobile device.
The only thing that skewed the results is if something relevant was within a few miles, and even then it was few and far between that it showed a difference. We even tried doing the same searches with having our location set to a completely different town or city, and got the same results.
Test was conducted using hotspots, wifi, 4g, 3g and multiple devices so we were not using the same IP. I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it has as large of an impact as people think.
-
David, what i'm trying to reach is this:
On the desktop page I add this between my
<linkrel="alternate"media="only screen="" and="" (max-width:="" 640px)" href="http://m.example.com/page-1"></linkrel="alternate"media="only>
On the mobile page I add this between my
<link< span="">rel="canonical"href="http://www.example.com/page-1"></link<>
In this way i'm saying to search engines that for this desktop URL an alternate mobile URL is available. The desktop URL is the one that will get in to the search results ( based on the canonical on the mobile URL) and users will be served the desktop or mobile page depending on the device they're using ("media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)". In this way duplicate issues are countered.
Besides this I have multiple copies of the my desktop URL. Thes copies get the right canonical to the source page. But when I want to add the rel=alternate to my source, they also are added to my copies of the desktop URL. (The system in which i'm working doesn't allow me to do otherwise)
I made a scheme of this (see image). I'm concerned that the rel=alternate on the desktop's copy URL's may cause problems to achieve the above.
@Robert: Thanks for the input, clear to me. I will test it!
-
David,
I would not suggest this as there are separate mobile search results. I think you are taking a risk with no-indexing your mobile pages. You are better served to use rel=alternate IMO.
Best, -
We use the mobile pages for users only, and set them to "no-index". There is no reason for increased SEO (that I am aware of) to have both a m. and a www. version of a page indexed in Google. If you have a desktop page full of good conetnt, and it is in your sitemap, Google will find it. What you want to do is have the server detect the device the user is accessing the site from, and display the mobile or tablet version. IMO this is to help the user to navigate your site easier, not to get a seo boost by having more pages or showing Google you have mobile-specific pages.
Also, add this to your robots.txt file:
User-agent: Googlebot-Mobile
Allow: /
User-agent: Mediapartners-Google*
Allow: / -
I put this down on paper and cannot see a way it is harmful. I am assuming there is more than one source page topic:
Site is Bikes, categories are wheels, handlebars, chains.
Pages are Bikes/wheels/red, blue, green
Bike/wheel/red = one source page, Bike/wheel/blue = one source page, etc. EDIT - each of these pages has multiple versions
If so, I would change half the source pages and just watch for a week. (Fetch as Google after changing - immediately so you have likelihood of quick reindex)
If you see nothing negative, implement rel=alt for all the other wheels
Does that seem clear?
-
Thanks a lot for the answer! To answer yours; If we want to insert a rel=alternate (or any tag) on the source page it's automatically added in it's copies. We can work around it but asks a lot of work and budget. Don't ask me why/how or the details, the only thing I know for sure is that it wasn't build for SEO ;).
Pieter
-
Humix,
I do not believe it would cause you a problem to have it on every copy of the source page; When you say the "system" won't allow you to place on just main source page, what do you mean?
Robert
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
-
Big page of clients - links to individual client pages with light content - not sure if canonical or no-follow - HELP
Not sure what best practice here is: http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ Is this is a situation where I'm best off adding canonical tags back to the main clients page, or to the practice area each client falls under? No-following all these links and adding canonical? No-follow/No-index all client pages? need some advice here...
Technical SEO | | simplycary0 -
If the order of products on a page changes each time the page is loaded, does this have a negative effect on the SEO of those pages?
Hello, a client of mine has a number of category pages that each have a list of products. Each time the page is reloaded the order of those products changes. Does this have a negative effect on the pages' rankings? Thank you
Technical SEO | | Kerry_Jones2 -
Ecommerce website: Product page setup & SKU's
I manage an E-commerce website and we are looking to make some changes to our product pages to try and optimise them for search purposes and to try and improve the customer buying experience. This is where my head starts to hurt! Now, let's say I am selling a T shirt that comes in 4 sizes and 6 different colours. At the moment my website would have 24 products, each with pretty much the same content (maybe differing references to the colour & size). My idea is to change this and have 1 main product page for the T-shirt, but to have 24 product SKU's/variations that exist to give the exact product details. Some different ways I have been considering to do this: a) have drop-down fields on the product page that ask the customer to select their Tshirt size and colour. The image & price then changes on the page. b) All product 24 product SKUs sre listed under the main product with the 'Add to Cart' open next to each one. Each one would be clickable so a page it its own right. Would I need to set up a canonical links for each SKU that point to the top level product page? I'm obviously looking to minimise duplicate content but Im not exactly sure on how to set this up - its a big decision so I need to be 100% clear before signing off on anything. . Any other tips on how to do this or examples of good e-commerce websites that use product SKus well? Kind regards Tom
Technical SEO | | DHS_SH0 -
Unreachable Pages
Hi All Is there a tool to check a website if it has stand alone unreachable pages? Thanks for helping
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
Top pages give " page not found"
A lot of my top pages point to images in a gallery on my site. When I click on the url under the name of the jpg file I get an error page not found. For instance this link: http://www.fastingfotografie.nl/architectuur-landschap/single-gallery/10162327 Is this a problem? Thanks. Thomas. JkLej.png
Technical SEO | | thomasfasting0 -
Renaming of pages
About 2 months ago one of our clients renamed a section of his website. The worst part is that the URLs of the page also changed. New page: http://www.meresverige.dk/rejser/malmo Old page: http://www.meresverige.dk/rejser/malmoe The problem now is that the new page get absolutely no page-rank transfered from the old page. It also get no mozrank at all. Also if I try to find it in the Open Site Explorer it can not be found.The old page can, but not the new one. We have updated the sitemap.xml and also done proper 301 redirect for the pages since about 2 months. Any ideas here? This page was a very important page in terms of traffic so very much thankful for any input. Have a great day Fredrik
Technical SEO | | Resultify0 -
301 & backlinks
Apologies if my question sounds like a school Maths lesson 😉 If you have 2 sites: Site 1) is linked to by sites A,B & C Site 2) is linked to by sites X,Y & Z You then 301 redirect site 2 to site 1. Most of the juice from site 2 (obtained from links X,Y,Z) should be passed over to site 1. But what if site 2 is linked to by the same sites A,B,C as site 1 instead of X,Y,Z. Since both sites have exactly the same links will the same, less, or any weight be passed over by the 301 redirect? Many thanks.
Technical SEO | | martyc1 -
Partial mobile sitemap
Hi, We have a main www website with a standard sitemap. We also have a m. site for mobile content (but m. is only for our top pages and doesn't include the entire site). If a mobile client accesses one of our www pages we redirect to the m. page. If we don't have a m. version we keep them on the www site. Currently we block robots from the mobile site. Since our m. site only contains the top pages, I'm trying to determine the boost we might get from creating a mobile sitemap. I don't want to create the "partial" mobile sitemap and somehow have it hurt our traffic. Here is my plan update m. pages to point rel canonical to appropriate www page (makes sure we don't dilute SEO across m. and www.) create mobile sitemap and allow all robots to access site. Our www pages already rank fairly highly so just want to verify if there are any concerns since m. is not a complete version of www?
Technical SEO | | NicB10