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
-
Google Indexed a version of my site w/ MX record subdomain
We're doing a site audit and found "internal" links to a page in search console that appear to be from a subdomain of our site based on our MX record. We use Google Mail internally. The links ultimately redirect to our correct preferred subdomain "www", but I am concerned as to why this is happening and if it can have any negative SEO implications. Example of one of the links: Links aspmx3.googlemail.com.sullivansolarpower.com/about/solar-power-blog/daniel-sullivan/renewable-energy-and-electric-cars-are-not-political-footballs I did a site operator search, site:aspmx3.googlemail.com.sullivansolarpower.com on google and it returns several results.
Technical SEO | | SS.Digital0 -
Mobile site content and main site content
Help, pls! I have one main site and a mobile version of that site (m.domain.com). The main site has more pages, more content, different named urls. The main site has consistently done well in Google. The mobile site has not: the mobile site is buried. I am working on adding more content to the mobile site, but am concerned about duplicate content. Could someone pls tell me the best way to deal with these two versions of our site? I can't use rel=canonical because the urls do not correspond to the same names on the main site, or can I? Does this mean I need to change the url names, offer different content (abridged), etc? I really am at a loss as to how to interpret Google's rules for this. Could someone please tell me what I am doing wrong? Any help or tips would GREATLY appreciated!!!!! Thanks!
Technical SEO | | lfrazer0 -
Why are URLs like www.site.com/#something being indexed?
So, everything after a hash (#) is not supposed to be crawled and indexed. Has that changed? I see a clients site with all sorts of URLs indexed like ... http://www.website.com/#!category/c11f For the above URL, I thought it was the same as simply http://www.website.com/. But they aren't, they're getting indexed and all the content on the pages with these hash tags are getting crawled as well. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | wiredseo0 -
Any idea why this is reporting a 404 in MozTools?
I did away with a vague category and 301 redirected the category url to the home page. However the link is reporting as a 404 in Moz Tools when it scans my site. Here's the link, and as you can see it redirects to the home page. Just curious if I did something wrong. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | NoahsDad0 -
Will training videos available on the "members only" section of a site contribute to the sites ranking?
Hello, I got asked a question recently as to whether training videos on the deeper pages of a website (that you can only access if you are a member and log in) will help with the sites ranking. On the SEOMoz software these deeper pages have been crawled as far as I can tell with errors reported on pages from the "members only" section of the site, leading me to believe the members only pages and their content will contribute to the sites overall ranking profile. I have suggested uploading the informational videos on the main pages of the site for now, making them accessible to all visitors and putting them in a more obvious place to encourage more sharing and views, however I've also said I would check it out with some experts so any information will be greatly appreciated! Many thanks 🙂 Charlotte
Technical SEO | | CharlotteWaller0 -
Site Hosting Question
We are UK based web designers who have recently been asked to build a website for an Australian Charity. Normally we would host the website in the UK with our current hosting company, but as this is an Australian website with an .au domain I was wondering if it would be better to host it in Australia. If it is better to host it in Australia, I would appreciate if someone could give me the name of a reasonably priced hosting company. Thanks Fraser
Technical SEO | | fraserhannah0 -
.CA site same as .com site - are both necessary?
Dear Friend, We representa a major national brand in the auto care industry, and they have locations in both US and Canada. There is a primary content site at .com that we have duplicated at .ca. We are hosting the .ca site on a separate IP on a server in Canada - but by in large it is the same site. (there are some minor changes we made to change US English to Canadian English - though minor. When we search Google.ca we generally see strong search results for the .com site, but rarely, if ever any evidence of rankings for the .ca site. The .com site was launched several years ago about 18 months before the .ca site. Why doesn't Google.ca show the .ca site? Is this an issue of duplicate content, and Google.ca simply shows the .com version which it knew about first? Are we wasting our time, money and efforts having both? Thanks, Tim ps. this isn't about location. We use a separate site to locate local shops, and have coordinated that well with Google Places, and when looking for local auto care - we do well in both US and Canada. The sites described above are largetl content sites.
Technical SEO | | lunavista-comm0