Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Best-practice URL structures with multiple filter combinations
-
Hello,
We're putting together a large piece of content that will have some interactive filtering elements. There are two types of filters, topics and object types.
The architecture under the hood constrains us so that everything needs to be in URL parameters. If someone selects a single filter, this can look pretty clean:
www.domain.com/project?topic=firstTopic
or
www.domain.com/project?object=typeOneThe problems arise when people select multiple topics, potentially across two different filter types:
www.domain.com/project?topic=firstTopic-secondTopic-thirdTopic&object=typeOne-typeTwo
I've raised concerns around the structure in general, but it seems to be too late at this point so now I'm scratching my head thinking of how best to get these indexed. I have two main concerns:
- A ton of near-duplicate content and hundreds of URLs being created and indexed with various filter combinations added
- Over-reacting to the first point above and over-canonicalizing/no-indexing combination pages to the detriment of the content as a whole
Would the best approach be to index each single topic filter individually, and canonicalize any combinations to the 'view all' page? I don't have much experience with e-commerce SEO (which this problem seems to have the most in common with) so any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-
Thanks for the detailed answer Jonathan. What you suggested was definitely in line with my thinking - indexing just the single topics at most and trying to either noindex or canonicalize all the thousands of possible variations. I definitely agree that all those random combinations of topics/objects hold no real value and at best will eat up crawl budget unnecessarily.
I can make sure Google treats these parameters as URLs via Search Console, they're unique to this piece of content; and I think I can noindex all the random combinations of filters (hopefully).
I'm still waiting to hear more from the dev team but I have a feeling that I won't be able to change the format to subdirectories instead of differentiating everything with query parameters - not the ideal situation but I'll have to make do.
Anyways, thanks again for your thoughtful reply!
Josh
-
Google is supposed to disregard everything after the ? in the query string when indexing. However, I know at times query strings will get indexed if the content on the query stringed URL appears different enough to Google. So I would agree with your motive to try to get these dynamic URLs simplified.
From what i have read on similar scenarios, and my first thought is, do these filtered view pages benefit searchers? Typically it benefits searchers to index maybe the category level of pages. In your instance, this may be the first topic. But once URLs start referencing very specific content that one user was filtering for, I would probably suggest a noIndex meta tag. There should be a scalable solution to this so you don't have to individual go into every filtered page possibility and add noIndex to the head.
If there is a specific filtered view you believe may benefit searches, or you have already seen a demand for, I would suggest making this a page using subfolders
www.domain.com/project/firstTopic/typeOne
and noIndexing all the crazy dynamically generated query string URLs. This should allow you to seize opportunities where you see search demand and alleviate any duplicate content risks.
If you don't want to noIndex, I would gauge the quality of these nitty gritty filtered pages, and if you see value in them, I would agree canonicalizing to the preceding category page sounds like a good solution.
I think this article does a good job explaining this. It suggests that if your filters are just narrowing content on the page rather than changing it, to noIndex or canonicalize (Although, the author does remind you that canonicalization is only a suggestion to Google and is not followed 100% of time for all scenarios).
I hope this helps, and if you don't see how these solutions would be implemented on your site, this issue may require some dev help.
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
-
My url disappeared from Google but Search Console shows indexed. This url has been indexed for more than a year. Please help!
Super weird problem that I can't solve for last 5 hours. One of my urls: https://www.dcacar.com/lax-car-service.html Has been indexed for more than a year and also has an AMP version, few hours ago I realized that it had disappeared from serps. We were ranking on page 1 for several key terms. When I perform a search "site:dcacar.com " the url is no where to be found on all 5 pages. But when I check my Google Console it shows as indexed I requested to index again but nothing changed. All other 50 or so urls are not effected at all, this is the only url that has gone missing can someone solve this mystery for me please. Thanks a lot in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Davit19850 -
Sitemaps: Best Practice
What should and what shouldn't go in the sitemap? In particular, pages like subscribe to our newsletter/ unsubscribe to our newsletter? Is there really any benefit in highlighting those pages to the SEs? Thanks for any advice/ anecdotes 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fubra0 -
Best practice for deindexing large quantities of pages
We are trying to deindex a large quantity of pages on our site and want to know what the best practice for doing that is. For reference, the reason we are looking for methods that could help us speed it up is we have about 500,000 URLs that we want deindexed because of mis-formatted HTML code and google indexed them much faster than it is taking to unindex them unfortunately. We don't want to risk clogging up our limited crawl log/budget by submitting a sitemap of URLs that have "noindex" on them as a hack for deindexing. Although theoretically that should work, we are looking for white hat methods that are faster than "being patient and waiting it out", since that would likely take months if not years with Google's current crawl rate of our site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teddef0 -
Membership/subscriber (/customer) only content and SEO best practice
Hello Mozzers, I was wondering whether there's any best practice guidance out there re: how to deal with membership/subscriber (existing customer) only content on a website, from an SEO perspective - what is best practice? A few SEOs have told me to make some of the content visible to Google, for SEO purposes, yet I'm really not sure whether this is acceptable / manipulative, and I don't want to upset Google (or users for that matter!) Thanks in advance, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Attack of the dummy urls -- what to do?
It occurs to me that a malicious program could set up thousands of links to dummy pages on a website: www.mysite.com/dynamicpage/dummy123 www.mysite.com/dynamicpage/dummy456 etc.. How is this normally handled? Does a developer have to look at all the parameters to see if they are valid and if not, automatically create a 301 redirect or 404 not found? This requires a table lookup of acceptable url parameters for all new visitors. I was thinking that bad url names would be rare so it would be ok to just stop the program with a message, until I realized someone could intentionally set up links to non existent pages on a site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | friendoffood1 -
Best practice for expandable content
We are in the middle of having new pages added to our website. On our website we will have a information section containing various details about a product, this information will be several paragraphs long. we were wanting to show the first paragraph and have a read more button to show the rest of the content that is hidden. Whats googles view on this, is this bad for seo?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexogilvie0 -
Canonical URLs and Sitemaps
We are using canonical link tags for product pages in a scenario where the URLs on the site contain category names, and the canonical URL points to a URL which does not contain the category names. So, the product page on the site is like www.example.com/clothes/skirts/skater-skirt-12345, and also like www.example.com/sale/clearance/skater-skirt-12345 in another category. And on both of these pages, the canonical link tag references a 3rd URL like www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. This 3rd URL, used in the canonical link tag is a valid page, and displays the same content as the other two versions, but there are no actual links to this generic version anywhere on the site (nor external). Questions: 1. Does the generic URL referenced in the canonical link also need to be included as on-page links somewhere in the crawled navigation of the site, or is it okay to be just a valid URL not linked anywhere except for the canonical tags? 2. In our sitemap, is it okay to reference the non-canonical URLs, or does the sitemap have to reference only the canonical URL? In our case, the sitemap points to yet a 3rd variation of the URL, like www.example.com/product.jsp?productID=12345. This page retrieves the same content as the others, and includes a canonical link tag back to www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. Is this a valid approach, or should we revise the sitemap to point to either the category-specific links or the canonical links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 379seo0 -
URL Length or Exact Breadcrumb Navigation URL? What's More Important
Basically my question is as follows, what's better: www.romancingdiamonds.com/gemstone-rings/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (this would fully match the breadcrumbs). or www.romancingdiamonds.com/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (cutting out the first level folder to keep the url shorter and the important keywords are closer to the root domain). In this question http://www.seomoz.org/qa/discuss/37982/url-length-vs-url-keywords I was consulted to drop a folder in my url because it may be to long. That's why I'm hesitant to keep the bradcrumb structure the same. To the best of your knowldege do you think it's best to drop a folder in the URL to keep it shorter and sweeter, or to have a longer URL and have it match the breadcrumb structure? Please advise, Shawn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Romancing0