#! (hashbang) check help needed
-
Does anybody have experience using hashbang? We tried to use it to solve indexation problem and I'm not fully sure do we use right solution now (developers did it with these FAQ and Guide to Ajax crawling as information source).
One of our client has problem, that their e-shop categories, has solution where search engines aren't able to index all products. In this example a category, there is this "Näita kõiki (38)" that shows all category products for users but as I understand search engines aren't able to index it as /et#/activeTab=tab02 because of #. Now there is used #! (hashbang) and it is /et#!/activeTab=tab02. Is this correct solution?
Also now example category URL is defferent for better indexation with:
/et#!/
../etAnd when tabs "TOP ja uued" and "Näita kõik" where activated/clicked then:
/et#/activeTab=tab01
/et#/activeTab=tab02I tried to fetch it in Google Webmaster Tools but it seems it didn't work.
I would appreciate it if anybody can check this solution?
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
-
Advice needed on canonical paginated pages
Hi there. I use Genesis and StudioPress themes. I recently noticed that the canonical link for blog pages points to the first page on all paginated pages, which I understand is an SEO no-no. I found some code here that adds a unique canonical link to each paginated page but for categories only. It works fine. I only have one category for my site. My question is: is there a downside (or even upside) to not having a blog page and placing a link to my category page in the navigation bar instead, using the category page as the blog page? It looks good and works. What do you think? I find it odd that this seems to be an issue across the Internet and the only solution that comes up relies on the Yoast plugin, which I don't want to use (don't want to use a plugin for SEO). Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nobody16165422281340 -
Self referencing canonicals and paginated content - advice needed
Hi, I help manage a large site that uses a lot of params for tracking, testing and to help deal with paginated content e.g. abc.com/productreview?page=2. The paginated review content correctly uses rel next and rel prev tags to ensure we get the value of all of the paginated review content that we have. The volume of param exclusions I need to maintain in Google & Bing Webmaster tools is getting clunky and frustrating. I would like to use self referencing canonicals, which would make life a lot easier. Here's my issue: If I use canonicals on the review pages the paginated content urls would also use the same canonical e.g. /productreview?page=2 pointing to /productreview I believe I am going to lose the value of those reviews, even though they use the rel next rel prev tags. BTW airbnb do this - do they know something I don't, don't care about the paginated reviews, or are they doing it incorrectly, see http://d.pr/i/14mPU Is my assertion above correct about losing the value of the paginated reviews if I use self referencing canonicals? Any thoughts on a solution to clearing up the param problem or do I have to live with it? Thanks in advance, Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
Help! Unnatural Linking Partial Manual Penalty
A friend was hit with a manual penalty for unnatural links-impacts links. (see attached) I'm thinking it may be because they copied their entire wordpress.com site over to site.org/blog. (without redirecting it, so they have duplicate content as well) Out of 76+k links, nearly 11,000 are from their wordpress.com blog. If that's the case is the problem solved by upgrading within wordpress.com to redirect to site.org/blog? (then making a reconsideration request?) Or do I risk negatively affecting their site somehow? They saw a significant increase in traffic when they moved the content over but I'm thinking that was more a matter of increasing content on their site than increasing backlinks. The .org site ranks relatively well, whereas the wordpress.com blog doesn't really rank at all.Worth noting: it's a partial match, not a sitewide match. Does that negate my theory about the wordpress.com blog being the cause in any way? Since many of the links from it are sitewide? The wordpress.com blog has a header link to the .org homepage, plus individual links to it in posts. There are also three links in the header to pages on their .com website which redirects to three corresponding pages on the main .org site (the whole .com redirects). There are 23 footer links from the blog to the targeted .org pages as well. In the attached screenshot of who links most from Google Webmaster Tools, note that martindale.com links most, but it's a lawyer's site so they naturally have referring content there. Could that be a problem?Thanks everyone! 🙂M8JVEI6.jpg?1 M6gYE90.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kimmiedawn0 -
Please, help me to understand these Google results
Hello here, I am eager to know your thoughts on this. If I search on Google for "fur elise violin sheet music", we are on the second page for our sheet music title of "Fur Elise for violin and piano" (look for "virtualsheetmusic.com"). Ok, that's not very good and I still have an hard time to figure out why there are many crappy and NOT really related websites listed before us, but here is the best (weird) part... .... search now for "fur elise violin and piano sheet music" which should narrow the query further down and so increase the chances for us to get on the first page results... and in fact we are on the first page with that query, but for a different page and a different music for a different instrument! If you scroll the first page of the results, you will find our site at the end of the 1st page for our version of "Fur Elise" for "viola and piano" and not for "violin and piano"... What the heck!??! Why's that??? Doesn't make any sense too me... why if the user search for "fur elise violin and piano" Google shows "Fur Elise for viola and piano"???!! I would really appreciate any thoughts on all this. Thank you in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Help Needed With .htaccess RewriteRule
Hello Fellow Mozzers, I would really appreciate a little help as I have been banging my head against a wall for the last few hours trying to create a .htaccess RewriteRule. I have around 300 URLs that I need to 301 redirect following a site re-build, they are in groups of similar urls but infortunately not broken down in to folders. Here is an example of a few URLs:- https://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana-ellwoodii_2.htm
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AdeLewis
https://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana-ellwoodii-200225cm-6670.htm
https://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana-ellwoodii.htm
https://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana-ellwoods-gold.htm
https://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana-lemon-queen.htm
https://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana-yvonne-200cm-66.htm All of the above URLs need to redirect to a new URL:- http://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana Here is the RewriteRule that I currently have but it isn't working:- RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^(.*)_chamaecyparis-lawsoniana$ https://www.domain.co.uk/chamaecyparis-lawsoniana [R=301,L] Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks
Ade.0 -
Does rel canonical need to be absolute?
Hi guys and gals, Our CMS has just been updated to its latest version which finally adds support for rel=canonical. HUZZAH!!! However, it doesn't add the absolute URL of the page. There is a base ref tag which looks like <base <="" span="">href="http://shop.confetti.co.uk/" /> On a page such as http://shop.confetti.co.uk/branch/wedding-favours the canonical tag looks like rel="canonical" href="/branch/wedding-favours" /> Does Google recognise this as a legitimate canonical tag? The SEOmoz On-Page Report Card doesn't recognise it as such. Any help would be great, Thanks in advance, Brendan.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Confetti_Wedding0 -
Mobile friendly version (CSS) - helps in rankings on mobile searches?
Does anyone know if there are any theories or evidence that a mobile optimized website (CSS) has better chances of ranking on Mobile platforms - assuming links and other factors being equal? In other words, is Google able to identify that a website has been optimized for mobiles and gives them preference/weight to rank over other websites that are not mobile optimized?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Syed10 -
Need to duplicate the index for Google in a way that's correct
Usually duplicated content is a brief to fix. I find myself in a little predicament: I have a network of career oriented websites in several countries. the problem is that for each country we use a "master" site that aggregates all ads working as a portal. The smaller nisched sites have some of the same info as the "master" sites since it is relevant for that site. The "master" sites have naturally gained the index for the majority of these ads. So the main issue is how to maintain the ads on the master sites and still make the nische sites content become indexed in a way that doesn't break Google guide lines. I can of course fix this in various ways ranging from iframes(no index though) and bullet listing and small adjustments to the headers and titles on the content on the nisched sites, but it feels like I'm cheating if I'm going down that path. So the question is: Have someone else stumbled upon a similar problem? If so...? How did you fix it.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gustav-Northclick0