|Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/16/13 3:36 AM|
I've read the FAQs and searched the help center.
My URL is: www.rightboat.com
Our sites URL structure was built with no care or consideration for readability nor SEO. We want to make the URLs readable by visitors and easy to navigate to different sections.
Google has about 30k pages of our in the index. Of those I would suspect 20k of them are good pages that we have listed in our sitemap XML, the rest are old pages from previous versions of the site. We have had a rough time with SERPS over the last 2 years, which we have partly blamed on duplicate URLs linking to the same pages, creating millions of 'thin' pages. Therefore we thought we should reach out for advice before making any changes so we do not get burnt again.
Our site has 3 main sections, article, guides and a large amount of classified advert pages. We are looking at changing the URLs of searches for the classified adverts
We are planning to change them to
The rest of the site has URLs such as
1) Is this a good idea?
2) What impact are we likely to see? Next month is a busy time for us and we do not want to drop in ranking
3) We plan to 301 old pages to new, how long should these be left in place?
4) We already have canonical tags in place, for example:
link rel='canonical' href='http://www.rightboat.com/search?manufacturer=fairline&pp=25&p=1&sort=Price&so=desc'
We will update these to be:
link rel='canonical' href='http://www.rightboat.comwww.rightboat.com/boats-for-sale/fairline&pp=25&p=1&sort=Price&so=desc'
Will Google see the 301, remember the redirect, then update to use the new canonical tag?
5) Is there anything else we need to consider or change?
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||alistair.lattimore||12/27/13 3:58 PM|
Before we get into your question at hand, are you aware that you currently have all of your boat profiles set as meta noindex,follow ?
Now onto your questions:
1) Why are you wanting to change the format of your URLs specifically? This will help decide if it's a good/bad/indifferent change.
2) Your rankings are going to suffer as you move from one URL format into a different format. It could take Google 6-8 weeks to crawl through and re-index all of your changes, at which point you'll start to see your rankings return to their former levels assuming nothing has gone wrong in the change.
3) As long as practical, if you aren't inconvenienced by leaving them in place - I'd recommend you leave them.
4) Google will see the 301 redirect from /search?manufacturer=fairline... into /boats-for-sale/fairline... and process it. Seperately, they'll see the canonical tag on the second URL and process it as well (this could result in changes or no changes depending on the configuration)
5) Caution & lots of testing. Site migrations are one of the most poorly handled tasks relating to SEO in my opinion and can go very wrong if not dealt with properly.
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||Corruption Private||12/27/13 8:48 PM|
I think it is for better organization.
As to the noindex part, I noticed they are search results and thus may have duplicate material in them.
Also, look at if the old page you are redirecting actually have any back-links or are getting traffic. If not, then I would say you can get rid of them.
If they do, then you can use a redirect. You may also want to contact the people with any good backlinks there and tell them of the change if you are just going to drop the page.
Just looked at the backlinks for http://www.rightboat.com/ and I can say right now that it looks spammy. That is just the top 100 results. You have over 7k of them according to Backlink Watch, so probably more in reality
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||black belt||12/27/13 9:16 PM|
I agree with Alistair on this one and for the following reasons.
1. Google has long been able to crawl and read through query strings. Impact on humans may be negligible.
2. For many reasons it is better not to 301 redirect if you have a choice not to redirect. It's not like choosing red or blue and has repercussions.
3. Why are indexing your search results pages?
4. Putting keywords into your URLs isn't going to magically boost you up in the rankings. I'd carefully consider changing your URLs because of the issue of redirects, the fact that a strong backlink profile might be affected (even though minimal in theory) and that alistair's statement that you should see a return is not guaranteed, just probable - or so we believe.
I see 22,000 boats for sale. Lots of incredibly thin pages. No dates when these went up. Is much of this content yours or are your users posting ads on multiple sites? I'd say your gains from changing URL structure is not the most impacting.
1 - Thin Content
2 - What does it mean to go to another website? Where is this content from?
3 - Duplicate content all over the web: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22please+visit+the+bhg+marine+web+site+for+more+details%22
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||xiarsa||12/27/13 9:20 PM|
hi matt, I'm not sure how to answer your question but i was wondering if you can help me with the 301 redirect code as i am trying to to the exact same thing.
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||black belt||12/27/13 9:24 PM|
Could you please start your own topic if you have issues?
Any 301 redirect information can be found here - but please no follow up questions on this topic here. Matt is considering a 301 redirect, not yet ready to implement.
301 redirects - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93633?hl=en
Webado General 301 Redirection on Apache server - https://sites.google.com/site/onlyvalidation/page/general-301-redirection-on-apache-server
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 12:24 AM|
Yes we no index the boats themselves as we were informed by John Mueller that we had a site with lots of 'thin' pages.
- We cannot control how much data is inputted within a boats listing.
- We have about 20k listings
Therefore we decided to noindex the boat pages, so Google index held fewer, but stronger pages.
The URL structure change was for several reasons, to make it easier to read the URL for the visitors, to make the URL reflect a breadcrumb feature we are planning, and to ensure Google could see what the page contained.
Thanks for your response
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 12:26 AM|
Hi Corruption Private,
Wow, this is news to me. I thought we 1) didn't have many links and 2) the ones we had were clean. What tool did you use to see them? I am very concerned.
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||Theresa S||12/30/13 12:31 AM|
If it were me, I would change the canonical to this:
link rel='canonical' href='http://www.rightboat.comwww.rightboat.com/boats-for-sale/fairline'
I just don't see any need to index pages & pages of multiple parameters (like price range and sort order). You will dilute the manufacturer pages and create more duplicate content in the process. Canonical is a great way to save yourself time & energy trying to code the "noindex"
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 12:33 AM|
Hi Black Belt,
Thanks for your comments.
1) As mentioned above, we are aware we have thin pages, there is nothing we can do about that, it is up to the seller to put up as good a listing as possible, however some feel that they would get more enquires by just posting a teaser.
2) We discourage the use of links within our listings, but have to allow them.
3) We cannot control if a seller advertises their boat for sale on other sites, then uses the same content.
For all these reasons we noindex the boat listings themselves and instead index the search results.
You mention about the dates in which the page is created. Is this important? We can easily add it, but some sellers may not want the fact that their boat has not sold for 2 years to be listed. Again these pages are noindex so I assume not relevant?
With regards to content, we do have our own content which we are adding to each week:
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||Corruption Private||12/30/13 12:40 AM|
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||black belt||12/30/13 12:49 AM|
I pointed out quite a number of things above...
1) Google is not going to give you a free pass because your site consists of inherently thin content that can be repeated elsewhere many times. Welcome to the quagmire that is user generated content and directories. Inherently, these types of sites will not rank nearly as well as others and typically will need to be supplemented by an investment in paid traffic, e.g. cpc, marketing, etc. in order to make the world go round. The ad revenue should be enough to justify the spend.
2) If so, then make sure your script nofollows the outbound links. It can be done. And if you don't do this, I give you the Black Belt Guarantee that there will be spammers who will find your site and unleash a torrent of backlinking fun.
3) See #1. It's the nature of the beast. This is what your site is and how it works. While I can appreciate your disappointment I am guessing you can understand the logic and understanding through explanation of how search works. Not all content is equal. Not all content will index well. The better quality control you have the better content you will have and the better the search engine results.
Regarding indexing... I see over 30,000 results (that also include www and non-www in the URL so you need to 301 redirect the non-preferred version to the preferred version.). These results are not useful. I chose one at random:
No matter how you slice it or dice it, you've got pages full of indexed pages that are clearly of lower quality and low value. Now you can do things to help improve your site but it will probably need to be in the way of facilitating much higher quality input than you have now, e.g. text description minimum characters, spell checking option, etc. Directories are tough. Good luck.
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 1:52 AM|
Thanks for the link
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 1:55 AM|
I pointed out quite a number of things above...
Agree. We do not want to beat the world, just our direct competitors who have the same issues as us.
Thanks, I will check this.
Thanks for pointing this out, it looks like we have started to index pages again. I will check what has gone wrong and strongly limit what should be indexed.
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 1:57 AM|
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||black belt||12/30/13 2:20 AM|
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 3:14 AM|
Long is over 6 months. I will submit the page via Google Webmaster Tools for reindexing.
Thanks for this link:
However I do not see how it can help - we do not use Google Search within our own search system, and it clearly states that this has no effect on the main Google index
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||JohnMu||12/30/13 4:18 AM|
Getting back to your question about the URLs ... I'd recommend *not* changing them, if you'd just change them for SEO reasons. There's a bit more background at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ch/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html about this kind of situation. We'd need to recrawl & reindex your whole website, and afterwards we'd be able to understand it less than before, so in short: there's no advantage to making that change on your website.
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||Eric Hewitson||12/30/13 5:41 AM|
Hi John, if you have just started a site or are about to start a site would you suggest going with readable urls?
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||Lysis||12/30/13 5:51 AM|
Yes. If you're just starting out, save yourself the headache and just do it at the beginning.
|Re: Advice on URL structure before we get burnt again||MattAshby||12/30/13 6:21 AM|
Many thanks for taking the time to respond. It is great to know that we would be wasting our time, we will spend our time elsewhere.