Refactoring 20,000+ URLs and the SEO impact
-
I run a site that is largely powered by user reviews. We have almost 20,000 reviews, and each review has its own unique URL (/items/item-reviewed/reviews/1), as each one is quite lengthy and detailed (much longer than the normal Yelp review). Of course, the item being reviewed has its own URL (/items/item-reviewed), and we would very much prefer users are driven to that page rather than a review page in search results.
I've been looking into ways to improve our SEO, and I'm wondering if the current structure is hurting our SEO to the item page, and if so, what is the best way to 'solve' the issue without causing future SEO issues. Basically, are the 20,000 (and growing) review pages reducing the SEO impact of the actual item pages? I'd like to get the content in the reviews indexed, but not at the expense of negative SEO impact on the items being reviewed.
I have several follow-up questions if the answer to my question is indeed 'Yes, it is negatively impacting the SEO of your item page', so I'll await a response. Thanks!
-
The issue is largely theoretical. The product pages seem to usually outrank the review pages, but I'm just wondering that with so many links on the item pages directing to even more content, are both competing with each other in SEO results and could the item pages' SEO be improved (even if it isn't that bad at the moment) by simply having one page for search engines to focus on?
As for adding the product to each of the reviews, we do indeed do this in a limited manner. I provide breadcrumbs to show the user where they are from a site structure layout as well as a few details on the item itself (as well as our own version of 'add to cart'), but that's it.
Alongside the potential SEO impact, I gotta think that providing some way to view the review on-page (lightbox modal) would stil benefit from a user experience. Taking them away from the item page to a review page and hoping they hit the back button is probably something we should address. Now, as you said, how I handle that is less of an SEO issue, but the potential elimination of all those review URLs is, so I'm wondering also how to handle the 404s and 301s if I go this route. Like you said, interesting issue
Again, thanks for all the help!
-
I didn't realize the reviews were that long. That does kind of present a problem and yes you don't want to hide them in a non-display element. I have used css z-index and slide the review into the viewport instead of using javascript to switch the display attribute. But I have only done this on a few small sites. Nothing like yours. The reviews were of limited length so that worked for me. Probably won't work in your case.
Hum, interesting problem. You said you already have a preview and read more link on the product page but the review page out ranks the product page? Or is this just theoretical?
Sounds like you need to do some A / B testing to find out why and then promote the preforming content to the main page.
Stupid question but, if your review page is already highly ranked why not add the product to each of those? I have to assume there is an add to cart function on each page.
This seem like less of an SEO question then one about conversion rates. Which is OK. That's the whole point.
-
Thanks for the response. I was fairly sure that was the answer but wanted to be sure before I littered the post with conditional follow-ups. To be clear, the reviews are really, really long, and easily make up their own page. There are usually about 20-40 questions (with answers ranging from text to a star rating) per review, so following Amazon is easier said then done, but I want to make sure we're taking the best possible route. The item page also gives review previews for each review, with a "Read more" link for each review that takes them to the review page.
That said, here are my followups:
-
In order to get the entire review indexed, as you said, I could hide the review on the page. But isn't that an SEO no-no, as Google could interpret such a large amount of hidden divs and content incorrectly? To get past that before, I've usually shown the review on initial page load and hide what I want with Javascript afterwards. Would that be a better solution?
-
So say I do indeed get rid of the reviews as their own page and instead open up the review in a lightbox modal when "Read more" is clicked (my current plan). Now, I have 20,000 indexed URLs I need to do something with to avoid 20,000 404s. The way I see it, I can do one of the 2 in order to maintain a URL that gets the user to the review they want on the item page:
- Setup the review modals to match a url param (/items/item-reviewed?reviews=1)
- Setup the review modals to match a url anchor (/items/item-reviewed#reviews=1)
I'll of course want to 301 redirect the previous review URLs. If I chose option #1, wouldn't I still have the same issue, as Google would still index the URL with a query parameter separate from the item URL, right? However, if I went option #2, could I even 301 to the new anchor URL? I know the anchor is client-side only, but after some research, it sounds like everything but IE would support a redirect to a URL with an anchor. In this case, does Google just treat the 301 as a redirection to the item page, practically ignoring the anchor? Are there any negative SEO impacts option #2 presents (apart from IE stripping the anchor on the redirection)? Would (assume an item has 30 reviews) 30 permanent redirects to a single URL be perfectly fine via SEO standards?
Thanks so much for your time!
-
-
I think the answer to this one is pretty easy. Just look at every other e-com site with reviews. They are all on the same page as the product. For usability sake the review are usually hidden in some way on the same page.
Tab, accordian, read more links etc.. When it comes to this type of question always follow the SEO masters at amazon.
I also suggest you mark up the reviews in a micro format. Not for SEO but for click thru rates.
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
-
SEO Migration Options
Hi Guys, We have a www.sitename.com.au domain name and looking to move into the US market, and other markets in the future such as UK, Canada, etc. We are reviewing our options. Currently the .com.au is ccTLD to Australia so won't perform well in US. It seems the best option at this stage is to get a generic domain Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) like a .com. Then create different sub-folders for each country for example: .com our main country .com/us/ target us .com/uk/ Then in Google Search Console don't set country targeting for entire domain but use Hreflang Tags to specify the targeting for each page? -- This seems like a complex strategy to execute so i just want to check if this would be a optional option? Any suggestions would be very much appreciated! Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cerednicenko0 -
International SEO Options?
Hi we currently have a site which is a example.com domain in the Australian market (we have geo-targeted to Australia within search console). We are looking to expand to United States. I have added the potential options down below, just wondering which one you guys think would be best from a SEO and practical standpoint? Or if there are other options i should consider? Option 1 The Australian domain is strong so this option takes this into consideration. Keep example.com (Australian) Add on: Sub-Directory for US Which would be: example.com/us/ In Search Console set the sub-folder to target US and also setup hreflang tags. Setup the US site on the sub-directory. Option 2 Add sub-folders for both Aus and US example/au/ (Australian)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jaynamarino
example/us/ (United States) Setup hreflang targeting. Cons
Need to set up redirects for the current site to new location which is .com/au/ might also see drop in performance due to redirects. Cheers.0 -
Seo for international sites
Hello, I have a question for the group, our main US site- http://www.datacard.com is utilized to move content to other regional sites like http://www.datacard.co.uk/ and http://www.datacard.fr/ and http://www.datacard.com.br/. Anyhow, we essentially have some regional content on those sites, but for ease of maintaining and updating the content we have a company translate this for us and then undergo an in country review for local people in our company to review the content. That being said the meta descriptions, titles, code, everything gets translated to that language. I know there are issue for SEO for these purposes as we get much better rankings with http://www.datacard.com. The regional sites are newer so this could be part of it. We don't have an agency helping us with SEo and i get a lot of questions on what can be done internally for this for regional sites with our current structure. Any tips you have? It would be greatly appreciated! Laura
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lauramrobinson320 -
Canonical URL availability
Hi We have a website selling cellphones. They are available in different colors and with various data capacity, which slightly changes the URL. For instance: Black iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html White iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,16,000000000010204783).html White iphone, 24GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,24,000000000010204783).html Now, the canonical URL indicates a standard URL: But this URL is never physically available. Instead, a user gets 301 redirected to one of the above URLs. Is this a problem? Does a URL have to be "physically" available if it is indicated as canonical?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zeepartner0 -
SEO Impact of High Volume Vertical and Horizontal Internal Linking
Hello Everyone - I maintain a site with over a million distinct pages of content. Each piece of content can be thought of like a node in graph database or an entity. While there is a bit of natural hierarchy, every single entity can be related to one or more other entities. The conceptual structure of the entities like so: Agency - A top level business unit ( ~100 pages/urls) Office - A lower level business unit, part of an Agency ( ~5,000 pages/urls) Person - Someone who works in one or more Offices ( ~80,000 pages/urls) Project - A thing one or more People is managing ( ~750,000 pages/urls) Vendor - A company that is working on one or more Projects ( ~250,000 pages/urls) Category - A descriptive entity, defining one or more Projects ( ~1,000 pages/urls) Each of these six entities has a unique (url) and content. For each page/url, there are internal links to each of the related entity pages. For example, if a user is looking at a Project page/url, there will be an internal link to one or more Agencies, Offices, People, Vendors, and Categories. Also, a Project will have links to similar Projects. This same theory holds true for all other entities as well. People pages link to their related Agencies, Offices, Projects, Vendors, etc, etc. If you start to do the math, there are tons of internal links leading to pages with tons of internal links leading to pages with tons of internal links. While our users enjoy the ability to navigate this world according to these relationships, I am curious if we should force a more strict hierarchy for SEO purposes. Essentially, does it make sense to "nofollow" all of the horizontal internal links for a given entity page/url? For search engine indexing purposes, we have legit sitemaps that give a simple vertical hierarchy...but I am curious if all of this internal linking should be hidden via nofollow...? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jhariani2 -
Canonical url question
i just search seomoz tooll it say duplicate content for www.mysite.com and www.mysite.com/index.php should i use canonical url for this ? is yes then is this right ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
URL for offline purposes
Hi there, We are going to be promoting one of our products offline, however I do not want to use the original URL for this product page as it's long for the user to type in, so I thought it would be best practice in using a URL that would be short, easier for the consumer to remember. My plan: Replicate the product page and put it on this new short URL, however this would mean I have a duplicate content issue, would It be best practice to use a canonical on the new short URL pointing to the original URL? or use a 301? Thanks for any help
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
Lots of incorrect urls indexed - Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site
Hi, Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Basically, our rankings and traffic etc have been dropping massively recently google sent us a message stating " Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site". This first highligted us to the problem that for some reason our eCommerce site has recently generated loads (potentially thousands) of rubbish urls hencing giving us duplication everywhere which google is obviously penalizing us with in the terms of rankings dropping etc etc. Our developer is trying to find the route cause of this but my concern is, How do we get rid of all these bogus urls ?. If we use GWT to remove urls it's going to take years. We have just amended our Robot txt file to exclude them going forward but they have already been indexed so I need to know do we put a redirect 301 on them and also a HTTP Code 404 to tell google they don't exist ? Do we also put a No Index on the pages or what . what is the best solution .? A couple of example of our problems are here : In Google type - site:bestathire.co.uk inurl:"br" You will see 107 results. This is one of many lot we need to get rid of. Also - site:bestathire.co.uk intitle:"All items from this hire company" Shows 25,300 indexed pages we need to get rid of Another thing to help tidy this mess up going forward is to improve on our pagination work. Our Site uses Rel=Next and Rel=Prev but no concanical. As a belt and braces approach, should we also put concanical tags on our category pages whereby there are more than 1 page. I was thinking of doing it on the Page 1 of our most important pages or the View all or both ?. Whats' the general consenus ? Any advice on both points greatly appreciated? thanks Sarah.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SarahCollins0