How to deal with old, indexed hashbang URLs?
-
I inherited a site that used to be in Flash and used hashbang URLs (i.e. www.example.com/#!page-name-here). We're now off of Flash and have a "normal" URL structure that looks something like this: www.example.com/page-name-here
Here's the problem: Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index. These URLs still work because the web server doesn't actually read anything that comes after the hash. So, when the web server sees this URL www.example.com/#!page-name-here, it basically renders this page www.example.com/# while keeping the full URL structure intact (www.example.com/#!page-name-here). Hopefully, that makes sense. So, in Google you'll see this URL indexed (www.example.com/#!page-name-here), but if you click it you essentially are taken to our homepage content (even though the URL isn't exactly the canonical homepage URL...which s/b www.example.com/).
My big fear here is a duplicate content penalty for our homepage. Essentially, I'm afraid that Google is seeing thousands of versions of our homepage. Even though the hashbang URLs are different, the content (ie. title, meta descrip, page content) is exactly the same for all of them. Obviously, this is a typical SEO no-no. And, I've recently seen the homepage drop like a rock for a search of our brand name which has ranked #1 for months. Now, admittedly we've made a bunch of changes during this whole site migration, but this #! URL problem just bothers me. I think it could be a major cause of our homepage tanking for brand queries.
So, why not just 301 redirect all of the #! URLs? Well, the server won't accept traditional 301s for the #! URLs because the # seems to screw everything up (server doesn't acknowledge what comes after the #).
I "think" our only option here is to try and add some 301 redirects via Javascript. Yeah, I know that spiders have a love/hate (well, mostly hate) relationship w/ Javascript, but I think that's our only resort.....unless, someone here has a better way?
If you've dealt with hashbang URLs before, I'd LOVE to hear your advice on how to deal w/ this issue.
Best,
-G
-
Celts,
Did you ever resolve this? What you were discussing back in 2012 is called a "hashbang", and you can learn more about it here on Google. It is technically a way to get AJAX-loaded pages indexed on their own URL.
You asked this question a couple of years ago, and things have changed since then with push states and HTML 5 being preferred over hashbangs, and not loading a page's content with AJAX still the recommendation when possible.
-
Thanks for your answer. Yeah, I've seen the hash tag function as you've described it when being used for named anchors. However, in my case, Google IS indexing the URLs that contain the #! and it is also grabbing my homepage's title and using it in the SERPs on those results. So, given that that's happening, I'm concerned that the #! IS hurting me in this case.
In thinking more about this, I think what I'll do is put a canonical tag on the homepage and that should hopefully provide the extra guidance/insurance that I need to tell spiders that there is only ONE version of the homepage.
-
Google ignores the hash tag when indexing URLs. You can offer your home page with various versions of hash tags appended to the end of the URL and Google will not mind a bit. It will not case any issue for SEO.
A few more notes:
- Hash tags are used in HTML as an onpage anchor. Wikipedia is a good example. Take a look at the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar. If you hover over the HISTORY link in the Table of Contents at the top of the page, notice the URL for the HISTORY link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar#History. When you click the link, you remain on the same page but move to the History part of the page.
If you search Google.com for "Guitar History" you will notice the WIki page is listed first. (see attachment). The URL offered by Google is the page URL without any hash tag. Google does offer the ability to "Jump to History" which includes the hash tag link. That is a benefit to using anchor text on a page. Otherwise Google does not take the hash tag nor anything after it into account when indexing pages.
Rand offers a short video on this exact topic: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-using-the-hash
I am not familiar with the exclamation point (bang) being used after the hash tag outside of twitter. The standard twitter URLs use it.
Summary - the hash bag is not the reason for your recent drop in rankings.
I am unclear what you mean by "Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index." Can you share an example?
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
-
Changing Url Removes Backlink
Hello MOZ Community, I have question regarding Bad Backlink Removal. My Site's Post's Image got 4 to 5k backlinks from unknown sites and also their is no contact details on their site so that i can contact them to remove. So, I have an idea for which i want suggestion " If I change the url that receieves backlinks" does this will remove backlinks? For Example: https://example.com/test/ got 5k backlinks if I change this url to https://examplee.com/test-failed/ does this will remove those 5k backlinks? If not then How Can I remove those Backlinks? I Know about disavow but this takes time.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jackson210 -
How to deal with parameter URLs as primary internal links and not canonicals? Weird situation inside...
So I have a weird situation, and I was hoping someone could help. This is for an ecommerce site. 1. Parameters are used to tie Product Detail Pages (PDP) to individual categories. This is represented in the breadcrumbs for the page and the use of a categoryid. One product can thus be included in multiple categories. 2. All of these PDPs have a canonical that does not include the parameter / categoryid. 3. With very few exceptions, the canonical URL for the PDPs are not linked to. Instead, the parameter URL is to tie it to a specific category. This is done primarily for the sake of breadcrumbs it seems. One of the big issues we've been having is the canonical URLs not being indexed for a lot of the products. In some instances, the canonicals _are _indexed alongside parameters, or just parameter URLs are indexed. It's all very...mixed up, I suppose. My theory is that the majority of canonical URLs not being linked to anywhere on the site is forcing Google to put preference on the internal link instead. My problem? **I have no idea what to recommend to the client (who will not change the parameter setup). ** One of our Technical SEOs recommended we "Use cookies instead of parameters to assign breadcrumbs based on how the PDP is accessed." I have no experience this. So....yeah. Any thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alces0 -
Recovering old disallow file?
Hi guys, We had aN SEO agency do a disallow request on one of our sites a while back. They have no trace of the disallow txt file and all the links they disallowed. Does anyone know if there is a way to recover this file in google webmaster tools or anyway to find which links were disallowed? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright0 -
Dealing with thin comment
Hi again! I've got a site where around 30% of URLs have less than 250 words of copy. It's big though, so that is roughly 5,000 pages. It's an ecommerce site and not feasible to bulk up each one. I'm wondering if noindexing them is a good idea, and then measuring if this has an effect on organic search?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO1 -
Why is the meta description not the same as in the index?
Hi all, When I search for keywords concerning "little wannahaves", the meta description in attachment 1 appears. This is however not the meta description I gave in. When I search for "site:littewannahaves.nl" the right meta description appears, see attachment 2. Does anyone know how why these two differ and how I can fix this? According to webmaster tools there should not be any error. Thanks in advance! P3FMNzP.png nkDXqRc.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | U-Digital0 -
Drop in indexed pages!
Hi everybody! I've been working on http://thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/ for a little while now. Until recently, everything was great - good rankings for the key terms of 'bird hides' and 'pond dipping platforms'. However, rankings have tanked over the past few days. I can't point my finger at it yet, but a site:thewilddeckcompany.co.uk search shows only three pages have been indexed. There's only 10 on the site, and it was fine beforehand. Any advice would be much appreciated,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO0 -
Problem of indexing
Hello, sorry, I'm French and my English is not necessarily correct. I have a problem indexing in Google. Only the home page is referenced: http://bit.ly/yKP4nD. I am looking for several days but I do not understand why. I looked at: The robots.txt file is ok The sitemap, although it is in ASP, is valid with Google No spam, no hidden text I made a request for reconsideration via Google Webmaster Tools and it has no penalties We do not have noindex So I'm stuck and I'd like your opinion. thank you very much A.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | android_lyon0 -
Should I shorten my urls?
For my informational site I have a lot of urls that are way too long. When I first created the site, I wrote a script that takes out the common words of a post and fashions a url. So, for example, if the first few words of a question were: Hi there, I have a question about back pain. I'm wondering what drugs would be good for relief and how I can get some help? then my url may be: www.mydomain.com/question?id=123-question-back-pain-wondering-drugs-good-relief-how-get-some-help Once I got learning about seo I realized that these urls were too long but I never did anything about them. Should I be shortening these, or is my time best spent doing something else?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarieHaynes2