Does Google Read URL's if they include a # tag? Re: SEO Value of Clean Url's
-
An ECWID rep stated in regards to an inquiry about how the ECWID url's are not customizable, that "an important thing is that it doesn't matter what these URLs look like, because search engines don't read anything after that # in URLs. " Example http://www.runningboards4less.com/general-motors#!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891
Basically all of this: #!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891
That is a snippet out of a conversation where ECWID said that dirty urls don't matter beyond a hashtag...
Is that true? I haven't found any rule that Google or other search engines (Google is really the most important) don't index, read, or place value on the part of the url after a # tag.
-
Thanks Sachin
So basically on sites that use ECWID for their ecommerce, only the main pages on the actual website (not the product pages that ECWID generates which is the part from the hashtag on) get indexed?
Essentially Google is NOT indexing any products because ECWID uses an existing page on a website and shows products there.
Is that correct? For example if you look at an XML sitemap for the running boards site that we used as an example you will see there are only 10 pages on it. However there are over a 1000 different types of running boards sold on the site which have their own pages populate after a #tag in the url: http://www.runningboards4less.com/index.php?option=com_xmap&view=xml&tmpl=component&id=1
-
Traditionally, the search engines ignore everything after the hash-tag because it's usually content contained on the same page or URL. Therefore, those additional URLs should not get indexed (only the part before the hashtag should). As per my experience, they completely disregard anything after the # tag in a URL.
However, it is always advisable to have clean urls as both SEs and people prefer them over complicated one. Clean urls deliver enhanced usability to help users remember and share your URLs more easily. Another benefit of a simple URL is that other sites are more likely to link to a simple URL, because it is easier to do so.
-
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Also if anyone knows how to modify Ecwid urls so that they are "clean", please chime in...
-
Thank you for your response. I am not implying that it is indexing a "separate" url. I am referring to the SEO value of a proper "clean" url for the specific page. ECWID doesn't allow for it's users to create custom urls.
If I were creating a url for the page I listed above, I would have it something like **** .com/chevy-van NOT _.com/#!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 _
My question regards the low or lack of any value at all using a url like the long one above and if the statement made by the ECWID rep is factual.
-
These URLs are called AJAX URL- a URL containing a hash fragment, e.g.,
www.example.com/index.html#mystate
, where#mystate
is the hash fragment.Reg. the above mentioned URL- This url is using Hash-Bang (#!) not hashtag, which makes Ajax/ javascript pages crawlable. The basic # indicates a location on a page (anchor) so does not get indexed as a separate URL.
You can find detailed information here- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/174992?hl=en
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/174993
Hope this helps!
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
-
What will SEO be like in the 2020's?
Hey guys, I would love to hear your thoughts on how you think SEO will change in the 2020's. The 2010's saw some pretty cool stuff like Panda, Penguin, penalties for non-mobile-friendly, non-secure and slow loading sites. What will be more or less important for SEO's in the 2020's than today? How will machine learning and AI change SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GreenHatWeb0 -
What is your experience so far, with the new Google's Meta Description length up to 320 characters?
I updated a few home pages and some landing pages, so far so good! Although, I wish to know about other experiences, before continue updating. Thanks for your comments!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mª Verónica B.2 -
Why isn't Google indexing this site?
Hello, Moz Community My client's site hasn't been indexed by Google, although it was launched a couple of months ago. I've ran down the check points in this article https://moz.com/ugc/8-reasons-why-your-site-might-not-get-indexed without finding a reason why. Any sharp SEO-eyes out there who can spot this quickly? The url is: http://www.oldermann.no/ Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo
INEVO, digital agency0 -
Google SERPs displaying Tracking Tags
Hello, I'm hoping someone can help me! Can you tell me why Google would be displaying the tracking URLs in the SERPs (screenshot - http://i.imgur.com/gbskD26.jpg)? I'm thinking it may have to do with the canonical URLs, but I'm not sure.. Thanks in advance! gbskD26.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mindstream_Media0 -
Removing Parameterized URLs from Google Index
We have duplicate eCommerce websites, and we are in the process of implementing cross-domain canonicals. (We can't 301 - both sites are major brands). So far, this is working well - rankings are improving dramatically in most cases. However, what we are seeing in some cases is that Google has indexed a parameterized page for the site being canonicaled (this is the site that is getting the canonical tag - the "from" page). When this happens, both sites are being ranked, and the parameterized page appears to be blocking the canonical. The question is, how do I remove canonicaled pages from Google's index? If Google doesn't crawl the page in question, it never sees the canonical tag, and we still have duplicate content. Example: A. www.domain2.com/productname.cfm%3FclickSource%3DXSELL_PR is ranked at #35, and B. www.domain1.com/productname.cfm is ranked at #12. (yes, I know that upper case is bad. We fixed that too.) Page A has the canonical tag, but page B's rank didn't improve. I know that there are no guarantees that it will improve, but I am seeing a pattern. Page A appears to be preventing Google from passing link juice via canonical. If Google doesn't crawl Page A, it can't see the rel=canonical tag. We likely have thousands of pages like this. Any ideas? Does it make sense to block the "clicksource" parameter in GWT? That kind of scares me.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
Did Reviews still have the same value in Google places ranking?
I have two questions relating to Reviews. 1. Reviews still add value to Google places ranking. 2. I have a page and two clients posted reviews for me.They all get removed after 3,4 days.What is wrong with Google?Did they consider them fake?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | csfarnsworth0 -
Google's Exact Match Algorithm Reduced Our Traffic!
Google's first Panda de-valued our Web store, www.audiobooksonline.com, and our traffic went from 2500 - 3000 (mostly organic referrals) per month to 800 - 1000. Google's under-valuing of our Web store continued to reduce our traffic to 400-500 for the past few months. From 4/5/2013 to 4/6/2013 our traffic dropped 50% more, because (I believe) of Google's "exact domain match" algorithm implementation. We were, even after Panda and up to 4/5/2013 getting a significant amount of organic traffic for search terms such as "audiobooks online," "audio books online," and "online audiobooks." We no longer get traffic for these generic keywords. What I don't understand is why a UK company, www.audiobooksonline.co.uk/, with a very similar domain name, ranks #5 for "audio books online" and #4 for "audiobooks online" while we've almost disappeared from Google rankings. By any measurement I am aware of, our site should rank higher than audiobooksonline.co.uk. Market Samurai reports for "audio books online" and "audiobooks online" shows that our Web store is significantly "stronger" than audiobooksonline.co.uk but they show up on Google's first page and we are down several pages. I also checked a few titles on audiobooksonline.co.uk and confirmed they are using the same publisher descriptions we and many other online book / audiobook merchants do = duplicate content. We have never received notice that our Web store was being penalized. Why would audiobooksonline.co.uk rank so much higher than audiobooksonline.com? Does Google treat non-USA sites different than USA sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lbohen0 -
.com Outranking my ccTLD's and cannot figure out why.
So I have a client that has a number of sites for a number of different countries with their specific ccTLD. They also have a .com in the US. The problem is that the UK site hardly ranks for anything while the .com ranks for a ton in the UK. I have setup GWT for the UK and the .com to be specific to their geographic locations. So I have the ccTLD and I have GWT showing where I want these sites to rank. Problem is it apparently is not working....Any clues as to what else I could do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt0