Do Share buttons take LinkJuice?
-
Hi,
I'm using AddThis sharing on my site.
The implementation is by embedding a href's all over the site.
Do these buttons take my LinkJuice?
Thanks
-
I think you are correct.
Here are the AddThis buttons script samples (no href):
<a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a> <a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a>
<a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a>
<a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a>
<a class="addthis_button_compact"></a>
<a class="addthis_counter addthis_bubble_style"></a>Here are the ShareThis buttons which are used by SEOMoz on blog posts (without <a>):</a>
<a>Just in case, I think I will go with ShareThis from now on...
Still looking for more ideas if anyone has...</a>
-
Do these buttons take my LinkJuice?
I would say yes.
Web pages present many links within javascript and other code. Social media links, Verisign SSL, TRUSTe and many other widgets which link to external sites are often presented in this manner. There are many social links which will be implement in a manner to simply present the link in HTML. The standard BBB link works in this manner as well.
The SEOmoz toolbar only recognizes the html links. If you present a link in javascript, the SEOmoz toolbar will not see the link. I am confident Google is much more sophisticated and can see and understand these links and adjust appropriately.
I do not know with 100% certainty but that is the best information I know.
-
I believe the links are placed with a javascript on page ready, so in that case 'no'. You have to put anchor-tags on your website, but there is no href attribute set to them, so there isnt an actual link.
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
-
Negative SEO & How long does it take for Google to disavow
Following on from a previous problem of 2 of our main pages completely dropping from index, we have discovered that 150+ spam, porn domains have been directed at our pages (sometime in the last 3-4 months, don't have an exact date). Does anyone have exerpeince on how long it may take Google to take noticed of a new disavow list? Any estimates would be very helpful in determining our next course of action.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Vuly1 -
I'm looking for a bulk way to take off from the Google search results over 600 old and inexisting pages?
When I search on Google site:alexanders.co.nz still showing over 900 results. There are over 600 inexisting pages and the 404/410 errrors aren't not working. The only way that I can think to do that is doing manually on search console using the "Removing URLs" tool but is going to take ages. Any idea how I can take down all those zombie pages from the search results?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexanders1 -
Is tabbed content okay or bad for SEO? Google takes both sides.
Hello Moz Community! It seems like there are two opinions coming from directly from Google on tabbed content: 1) John Mueller says here that content is indexed but discounted 2) Matt Cutts says here that if you're not using tabs deceptively, you're in good shape I see this has been discussed in the Moz Q & A before, but I have an interesting situation: The pages I am building have ~50% static content, and ~50% tabbed content (only two tabs). Showing all tabbed content at once is not an option. Since the tabbed content will make up 50% of the total content, it's important that it is 100% weighted by Google. I can think of two ways to show it: 1) Standard tabs using jQuery Advantage: Both tab 1 and tab 2's content indexed Disadvantage: Tabbed content may be discounted? 2) Make the content of the tabs conditional on the server side website.com/page/ only shows tab 1's content in html website.com/page/?tab=2 only shows tab 2's content in the html. Include rel="canonical" pointing to website.com/page/. Advantage: Content of tab 1 indexed & 100% counted by Google Disadvantage: Content of tab 2 not indexed Which option is best? Is there a better solution?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jamiestu130 -
Is this keyword easy to rank? how can I estimate what kind of work it takes.
I am Using Micro Niche Finder KeyWord: Send SMS online domain available: .org Avg. Monthly searches: 1600 Adword cost : 2.12 Measure of Back link: 633 SOC: 20 (green) Most of the Back link using Majestic SEO appear to be coming from sendhub.com and massmailsoftware.com website. I researched sites with these keywords and those sites appear to have tiered pricing plans and appear to be charging money for their services. My plan, put some effort in organic SEO and rank this site to page 1. Get some optin users and start communicating with them to see what is their pain point. How can I tell on what it takes to rank this page to page 1 on google? Would it take lot of blog articles for back link and if so… how many? Is a rough estimate possible. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zsyed0 -
Town and County pages taking months to index.
Hi, At http://www.general-hypnotherapy-register.com/regional-hypnotherapy-directory/ we have a load of town and county pages for all of the hypnotherapists on the site a) I have checked all of these links and they are spiderable. b) About a month back I noticed after the site changes, not entirely sure why, but the site was generating rogue pages, eg http://www.general-hypnotherapy-register.com/hypnotherapists/page/5/?town=barnsley instead of http://www.general-hypnotherapy-register.com/hypnotherapists/?town=barnsley We have added meta no index, no follow to these rogue pages around 4 weeks ago..however these pages still have a google cache date of Oct 4th predating these meta changes c) There are examples of the pages we do want, indexed, and ranking too on page 1, site:www.general-hypnotherapy-register.com/hypnotherapists eg http://www.general-hypnotherapy-register.com/hypnotherapists/?town=ockham however these pages are few and far between, these have a recent google cache date of Nov 1 **d) **The xml sitemap has all of the correct URLS, but in webmaster tools, the amount of pages indexed has been stubbornly flat at 2800 out of 4400 for 4 weeks now e) Query Paramaters: for ?town and ?county in webmaster tools, are set to Yes/Specifies Would love any suggestions, Thanks. Mark.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Advantec0 -
Should each physical store have its own ecommerce store on subfolders, or share a single national one?
Each store has its own subfolder (in my mind this hasn't actually happened yet 😉 ) on the main head office domain i.e. maindomain.com/localstore1 , maindomain.com/localstore2 etc. I am happy that this is the best structure for SEO purposes. I like the local SEO advantages to it as each store can have its own NAP and show its own inventory. However I am worried that each store having its own ecommerce site will lead to duplicate content issues. So I am having a rabid debate with myself as to whether each store should:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BruceMcG
a) have its own ecommerce website i.e. maindomain.com/localstore1/ecommercestore
b) have its own ecommerce website i.e. maindomain.com/localstore1/ecommercestore with each product and category page having canonical links to the corresponding page on the main ecommerce website i.e. maindomain.com/ecommercestore
c) just have one ecommerce website with local stock shown e.g. maindomain.com/ecommercestore/productpage shows in an inventory in a line (below the price or such like): " localstore1 (3 items) localstore2 (0 items)"
d) just chill, inventory stock-outs happen just don't worry about showing local stock And its not good to have internal rabid debates, so I'd like to ask the wider moz community. For bricks and mortar stores (branches or franchises) how would you set up ecommerce stores? Thanks.0 -
Recovering from index problem (Take two)
Hi all. This is my second pass at the problem. Thank you for your responses before, I think I'm narrowing it down! Below is my original message. Afterwards, I've added some update info. For a while, we've been working on http://thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/. Everything was going swimmingly, and we had a top 5 ranking for the term 'bird hides' for this page - http://thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/products/bird-hides. Then disaster struck! The client added a link with a faulty parameter in the Joomla back end that caused a bunch of duplicate content issues. Before this happened, all the site's 19 pages were indexed. Now it's just a handful, including the faulty URL (thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/index.php?id=13) This shows the issue pretty clearly. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Athewilddeckcompany.co.uk&oq=site%3Athewilddeckcompany.co.uk&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2178j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I've removed the link, redirected the bad URL, updated the site map and got some new links pointing at the site to resolve the problem. Yet almost two month later, the bad URL is still showing in the SERPs and the indexing problem is still there. UPDATE OK, since then I've blocked the faulty parameter in the robots.txt file. Now that page has disappeared, but the right one - http://thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/products/bird-hides - has not been indexed. It's been like this for several week. Any ideas would be much appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO0 -
What is the best way to allow content to be used on other sites for syndication without taking the chance of duplicate content filters
Cookstr appears to be syndicating content to shape.com and mensfitness.com a) They integrate their data into partner sites with an attribution back to their site and skinned it with the partners look. b) they link the image back to their image hosted on cookstr c) The page does not have microformats or as much data as their own page does so their own page is better SEO. Is this the best strategy or is there something better they could be doing to safely allow others to use our content, we don't want to share the content if we're going to get hit for a duplicate content filter or have another site out rank us with our own data. Thanks for your help in advance! their original content page: http://www.cookstr.com/recipes/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta their syndicated content pages: http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta0