Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    104
    Member #
    21316
    Liked
    1 times
    I read a post explaining Canonicalization, take a look at the first rule the poster mentions:
    http://www.webtrafficroi.com/get-seo...s-immediately/

    How important is this?
    Does Google really see your URL as "4 different websites"?

  2.  

  3. #2
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,480
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2784 times
    No, but it may view them as four different pages (since that's what they could potentially be).

    And, as is often the case, an SEO wannabe has about 1/10th of the idea, but the majority is way off base. Fixing canonical issues can help you, but if you're not careful fixing these issues can hurt you, particularly in the short run.

    To understand what I mean, I'll borrow a part of their example Let's say you have two canonical URLs that both reference the same page.

    example.com
    example.com/index.html

    For argument's sake, let's say example.com/index.html is considered the "original" page in Google's eyes and example.com is the duplicate (sounds stupid, but I've seen this happen before). A surface glance would suggest a 301 from example.com/index.html to example.com, since it would fix the issue once and for all.

    But here's the catch...Google doesn't immediately acknowledge 301 redirects as they come across them, as 301 is often over/misused when things such as a 302 would be more appropriate. As a result, what often happens is that index.html suffers (and in the odd case is even completely dropped) while example.com gains nothing. So there is the possibility of a short term hit, and if you don't properly deal with the canonical issue, it may never fully recover.

    What I usually do when dealing with a potential canonical issue is to deal with it in stages as much as I can. I do a section of the URLs affected, then when they're okay, move on to the next section. This minimizes disruption while maintaining an ROI. However, this has to be evaluated on a site-by-site basis and things such as existing traffic levels and time of year (among others) need to be considered. You can't just make a blanket statement that says "you should fix canonical issues". Fix them if your traffic is low and can't be negatively affected that much by doing so.

    That whole article is just a bunch of brainless BS as well.
    [SIZE=16px]Example.com or www.example.com[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=16px]SEO experts always recommend the www.example.com version.[/SIZE]
    I'd like to know which experts this guy is talking to. I've never heard an expert say that, nor is there any good reason to...if you've properly dealt with the canonical issue, then there is absolutely no difference between a dub-dub-dub and a non-dub-dub-dub.
    [SIZE=16px]To do this all you must do is enter a code into your .htaccess file in the public_html folder of your server.[/SIZE]
    Except in the case of websites that don't have a public_html folder and/or ones hosted on servers that either can't properly (Windows) or don't allow for (certain hosts) .htaccess files. Not to mention the number of cases where the handling of a canonical issue may be beyond the scope of an .htaccess file.
    [SIZE=16px]- [/SIZE][SIZE=16px]Google +[/SIZE][SIZE=16px], Google +, Google +. Social media is becoming a huge indicator for search engines to rank pages. By adding social plug-ins to your site, you’re encouraging people to share your content and send positive signals to Google.[/SIZE]
    There's a reason to do this, but "SEO" isn't it. Since social media likes/votes/+1s/whatever other names they go by have all but become a unit of currency, they're pretty much worthless in the eyes of search.
    [SIZE=16px]Bounce rates are a HUGE indicator to Google to determine search rankings.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=16px]Google is also looking at the type of content to media ratio you have on your page and they are sensing the amount of media people love.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=16px]There primary goal is to provide their searchers with the best content, so they’ll be looking to feed them more sites that are going to engage them and be of value.[/SIZE]
    FIrst of all, the writer needs to learn when to use "their", "they're" and "there".
    Second, the comment about bounce rates flies in the face of the SEOmoz article you posted that listed several reasons why bounce rates aren't an accurate measure (reasons that all generally relate to the user quickly finding what (s)he wanted). I don't often agree with SEOmoz, but I will here.
    Third, since when does a "content to media" relationship exist? If that were the case, Facebook, Yelp, Wikipedia and YP wouldn't be popular sites.

    Seriously, it's guys like this that make the SEO industry look like a bunch of blithering idiots. They don't think, they just parrot.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Webzarus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Carolina Coast
    Posts
    3,322
    Member #
    27709
    Liked
    770 times
    I wish just one of these so called SEO experts would actually look at log files.

    I've done this on 10 or more "test" sites i setup to monitor behaviors of search engines when I was building my own.

    1. Search engine finds a URL, strips out the domain name, checks to see if that specific URL is in the DB.

    If it is DONE

    if not

    2. If there is no file extension or the URL ends with a "/" , it assumes its the default file extension for that domain. If there is a file extension, it flags it for indexing as is.

    3. A robots.txt "HEAD" request is sent to the domain, if 404 response, it's flagged to check again in a certain timeframe ( each crawler is different ), if a 200 response is returned, a crawler is sent to pull a copy of the robots.txt time to parse against a domain map.( assumption since that's what I do ).

    4.when trying to determine the default file for the domain, a series of HEAD request are sent, starting with index.htm, index.html, index.php, index.asp, index.aspx ... Etc... If anyone of them returns a 200 response, that is flagged as the default file ext. for the domain since typically, only 1 can be defined per site.

    If nothing but 404 responses are returned, there is an assumption that a .htaccess mod-rewrite or custom server config is at play, and is flagged on the DB. I do this on mine so when my crawler hits a site that is flagged this way, it I can't use "last modified as date" or CRC as an accurate indicator of if the page has been modified since last crawl.

    Since I have an assumption that the bigger brains that get paid millions of dollars a year know more about how to index and map a site better than me, I'm sure they know of better ways to avoid this whole caonicalization "theory"... As that is all it is... A theory...

    Want to freak out a crawler ... The next new site you out up... First thing... Put up a robots.txt file to disallow all crawlers...

    Then build a page with different content and name them with all the different "default" file extensions... Do this for every folder you have... Of course the server is only going to serve up the defaults that the server is configured for. Make sure to include the robots meta tag of noindex,NOFOLLOW , so the pages aren't indexed, but you'll keep seeing head request for those files in your log files.


    Once you get the entire site up, change the robots.txt to allow.

    Then start watching the log files and you'll see what I mean about head request.

  5. #4
    WDF Staff smoseley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    9,729
    Member #
    819
    Liked
    205 times
    Side-note... a lot of browsers cache 301s now, so be careful not to use them when you mean to use a 302.

  6. #5
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,480
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2784 times
    WZ: you should read that article and then read the comments the guy posts underneath it. He's an Expert, no question about it.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)


Remove Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2022 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com