New AddThis URL Sharing
-
So, AddThis just added a cool feature that attempts to track when people share URL's via cutting and pasting the address from the browser.
It appears to do so by adding a URL fragment on the end of the URL, hoping that the person sharing will cut and paste the entire thing. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
Unless I misunderstand, it seems like it will add a fragment to every URL (since it's trying to track all of 'em). Probably not a huge issue for the search engines when they crawl, as they'll, hopefully, discard the fragment, or discard the JS that appends the fragment.
But what about backlinks? Natural backlinks that someone might post to say, their blog, by doing exactly what AddThis is attempting to track - cutting and pasting the link.
What are people's thoughts on what will happen when this occurs, and the search engines crawl that link, fragment included?
-
Thanks, Ryan.
-
I am not sure why you received the malware alert. Here is a direct link to the video on viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/jpozadzides/videos/2/
I can share that I used TYNT. Every page of my content had a hash tag on it and I never saw a search result with a hashtag. I never saw any indication in GWMT that my site used hashtags.
Matt clearly says "Google takes a URL and truncates at the hashmark. If you have bla-bla-bla #3 and bla-bla-bla #4 those both get treated or canonicalized as the same URL"
-
Seems like Rand concurred back in 2009:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-using-the-hash
Useful stuff. About halfway down the comments on the above link Rand mentions needing specific analytics code to track things accurately. Anyone have experience with Google Analytics and # symbols?
By the way, Ryan, that link you posted is being flagged by Avast as containing malware. No idea if it's real or not.
-
I was just watching a Matt Cutts video from 2007. Yes, I know that would be considered the dark ages of SEO but I believe for this topic, the video has relevancy.
@22 minutes in Matt says when Google encounters a hashtag in a URL they truncate it.
http://onemansblog.com/2007/08/04/matt-cutts-lecture-whitehat-seo-tips-for-bloggers/
-
The hash tags do not appear in the SERPs.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the response!
My interest isn't so much about visitors being able to follow the backlink or not, but how the SE's will index them. When a SE crawls a site with URL fragments, my experience has been that they do a good job discarding them.
What I'm seeing is two possibilities:
-
The SE's will discard the fragment when they crawl, and simply index the page as if it didn't have a fragment on the end, meaning a backlink with a fragment is identical to one without. Or,
-
They won't discard the fragment, and we'll end up with duplicates in the SERP's, which would, in part, be dealt with via a canonical tag.
It's great that you've used a similar service with TYNT.com Do you have any experience in how the SE's behave when crawling a link from TYNT and indexing that page?
Cheers.
-
-
This is nothing new to the web, just new to AddThis. TYNT.com offers this identical service. I have used them for some time but since I use AddThis for social sharing, it is more convenient for me to move this service to AddThis and eliminate one vendor.
The hashtag that is added to the end of URLs is there for tracking purposes. You can remove it or alter it, and you will still wind up on the exact same page. The hashtag has no effect on backlinks other then to track them.
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
-
Faceted Navigation URLs Best Practices
Hi, We are developing new Products Pages with faceted filters. You can see it here: https://www.viatrading.com/wholesale-products/ We have a feature allowing to Order By and Group By, which alters the order of all products. There will also be the option to view Products as a table, which will contain same products but with different design and maybe slightly different content of each product. All this will happen without changing the URL, https://www.viatrading.com/all/ Is this the best practice? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | viatrading10 -
How soon should new links show up?
Hi I know that GWT's will not show all my links but is there a 3rd party (other than Moz of course!) tool that will? And how quickly should they show up? Thanks Ash
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AshShep10 -
Should /node/ URLs be 301 redirect to Clean URLs
Hi All! We are in the process of migrating to Drupal and I know that I want to block any instance of /node/ URLs with my robots.txt file to prevent search engines from indexing them. My question is, should we set 301 redirects on the /node/ versions of the URLs to redirect to their corresponding "clean" URL, or should the robots.txt blocking and canonical link element be enough? My gut tells me to ask for the 301 redirects, but I just want to hear additional opinions. Thank you! MS
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MargaritaS0 -
Canonical url issue
Canonical url issue My site https://ladydecosmetic.com on seomoz crawl showing duplicate page title, duplicate page content errors. I have downloaded the error reports csv and checked. From the report, The below url contains duplicate page content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trixmediainc
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd And other duplicate urls as per report are,
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&click=colorsu&brands=66 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd But on every these url(all 4) I have set canonical url. That is the original url and an existing one(not 404). https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=0 Then how this issues are showing like duplicate page content. Please give me an answer ASAP.0 -
New site - when will it rank?
We changed our domain 6 weeks ago as we had a penalty we couldn't shake off... My question is: How long will it take to rank for our keywords. I appreciate this is a difficult questions as there are a lot of factors that will effect our ranking. Do Google wait a period of time before allowing a new site to rank well?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jj34340 -
How long until my correct url is in the serps?
We changed our website including urls. We setup 301 redirects for our pages. Some of the pages show up as the old url and some the new url. When does that change?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
URL Structure for Directory Site
We have a directory that we're building and we're not sure if we should try to make each page an extension of the root domain or utilize sub-directories as users narrow down their selection. What is the best practice here for maximizing your SERP authority? Choice #1 - Hyphenated Architecture (no sub-folders): State Page /state/ City Page /city-state/ Business Page /business-city-state/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knowyourbank
4) Location Page /locationname-city-state/ or.... Choice #2 - Using sub-folders on drill down: State Page /state/ City Page /state/city Business Page /state/city/business/
4) Location Page /locationname-city-state/ Again, just to clarify, I need help in determining what the best methodology is for achieving the greatest SEO benefits. Just by looking it would seem that choice #1 would work better because the URL's are very clear and SEF. But, at the same time it may be less intuitive for search. I'm not sure. What do you think?0 -
Spammy? Long URLs
Hi All: Is it true that URLs such as this following one are viewed as "spammy" (besides being too long) and that such URLs will negatively affect ranks for keywords and page ranks: http://www.repairsuniverse.com/ipod-parts-ipod-touch-replacement-repair-parts-ipod-touch-1st-gen-replacement-repair-parts.html My thinking is that the page will perform better once it is 301 redirected to a shorter page name, such as: http://www.repairsuniverse.com/ipod-touch-1G-replacement-parts.html It also appears that these long URLs are also more likely to break, creating unnecessary 404s. <colgroup><col width="301"></colgroup> Thanks for your insight on this issue!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | holdtheonion0