Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google penalty for SEO Settings?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
    #31
    Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

    I was just looking into that, glad to see there is a path back to cattree and breadcrumbs functioning properly. Thx!
    Geoff Manning
    -------------------------
    Miva Sites: Oriental Furniture | Room Dividers

    Comment

      #32
      Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

      I spoke with Matt Cutts of Google recently. He suggested also that people use the canonical meta tag that google has implemented. Other search engines seem to be following google's lead on this as ASK.com has picked it up and the other major search engines have been talking with google about it. According to Matt, Google has no problem with them implementing it if they want to, as google feels that it will only help everyone.
      Last edited by kayakbabe; 04-02-09, 12:39 PM.

      Comment

        #33
        Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

        Google's canonical thing is fine for small sites but it's not practical on large stores.
        Steve Strickland
        972-227-2065

        Comment

          #34
          Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

          how so? it's working find on one of my stores with about 7000 products. It's cleaned up our webmaster tools problems quite nicely?

          Comment

            #35
            Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

            Originally posted by Biffy View Post
            Google's canonical thing is fine for small sites but it's not practical on large stores.
            Yes, why would this not work for "large" stores? If done correctly the canonical URL's are dynamic so it should work for every product and category. Is there something we are not taking into account?

            Comment

              #36
              Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

              That tag has to be added to the <head> section of the duplicate content URLs. Assuming the simplest case of all, a product which is in 2 different categories and the links contain the category code (standard MM) e.g.

              mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Category_Code=a3a&Product _Code=magclip
              mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Category_Code=spec&Produc t_Code=magclip

              So how in Miva Merchant, do you add that meta tag such that the first link above, is the "page" which Google recognizes as the preferred URL?
              Last edited by Pete McNamara; 04-04-09, 12:12 AM.

              Comment

                #37
                Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                In Miva 5+ you would put the canonical URL's in the product and category page templates using the appropriate product and category variables to complete the dynamic URL.
                The Miva Merchant blog posted some examples and a better explanation here: http://blog.mivamerchant.com/46/sett...product-pages/

                For your example you would use something like this in the category template head tag:
                Code:
                <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=&mvta:category:code;" />
                and you would use this in the product head tag:
                Code:
                <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=&mvta:product:code;" />
                Make sure you to put the canonical link within the head tags of the document not in the header of the template page. I think there was a mistake on one of the articles telling you to put it in the header area which may work but the directions that google specified said to put it in the head tag.
                Last edited by morditech.com; 04-04-09, 12:54 AM.

                Comment

                  #38
                  Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                  Originally posted by morditech.com View Post
                  Yes, why would this not work for "large" stores? If done correctly the canonical URL's are dynamic so it should work for every product and category. Is there something we are not taking into account?
                  There was something I wasn't taking into account. I didn't know they had a dynamic method now.

                  I don't understand how it could work with that implementation. Each path would give a different canonical link so how would Google know which one to use?

                  It would not be needed for SEO links that do not use category codes.
                  Last edited by Biffy; 04-04-09, 02:18 AM.
                  Steve Strickland
                  972-227-2065

                  Comment

                    #39
                    Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                    Unfortunately Morditech, that tutorial fails to follow the instructions contained in the Google Webmaster Central blog, hence my question above.

                    The instructions specifically say that the tag is to be placed in the head area of the "pages" (i.e. URLs) that you don't want indexed. The tutorial and method you cite places the tag in all pages i.e. the ones you don't want indexed plus the one you do want indexed.

                    So, in accordance with the Google Webmaster Central blog instructions, again I ask, how in Miva Merchant, do you add that meta tag such that the first link above, is the "page" which Google recognizes as the preferred URL?

                    Comment

                      #40
                      Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                      Originally posted by Pete McNamara View Post
                      Unfortunately Morditech, that tutorial fails to follow the instructions contained in the Google Webmaster Central blog, hence my question above.
                      Pete,
                      I addressed this in my last correspondence.
                      "Make sure you put the canonical link within the head tags of the document not in the header of the template page. I think there was a mistake on one of the articles telling you to put it in the header area which may work but the directions that Google specified said to put it in the head tag."

                      You should put the canonical link in the head tags of the product and category template pages and make the link itself point to the product or category page that you want Google to read as the original content or main page. The link will show up on every product and category page and it will always point to the main page that should be indexed.

                      If you use short links then change your canonical links to reflect what the appropriate link to the products or categories should be. Even the correct links should have the canonical URL in it. That is the safest and best way to do it from what I understand.

                      If my answer to you is still unclear or if you do not think I understand your question then I ask that someone else chime in here and mediate.
                      Last edited by morditech.com; 04-04-09, 09:23 AM.

                      Comment

                        #41
                        Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                        Hi Morditech,

                        You didn't address my concern because I think you think I don't understand where or how to place the tag in Miva Merchant. I do. My apologies - it seems I was being a little too cute in my previous posts.

                        My issue is this: if I put the canonical link in the head tags of the product and category template pages, then this places the tag in all pages i.e. the ones I don't want indexed plus the one I do want indexed.

                        The Google Webmaster Central blog instructions specifically say that the tag is to be placed between the <head> tags of the "URLs" (you say "documents", I say pages because that is what they are in MM - i.e. generated from the "Page" template) that you don't want indexed. They do not mention placing the tag on the pages/documents/URLs you do want indexed as well.

                        I have learned over the years to pay very careful attention to what Google doesn't say.

                        It may well be that this is an error on their part and Google ignores the tag when it is on the page that you do want indexed (this would be logical), but maybe not. The problem is that they don't say. Furthermore, even if there was no downside with Google in placing the tag on the pages you want indexed, if other search engines are "picking up" on this tag, I would be cautious about assuming they will implement it identically to Google.

                        My point is that this tag is new and doesn't have a track record. Implementing it the way you suggest is not implementing it exactly as per the Google instructions. I would be cautious about adopting it this way (in a MM store) at this time, especially as the instructions are not crystal clear. Do you really want to be a Beta tester in matters where your living depends on its initial success or failure? There are other (proven) ways of addressing the duplicate pages issue.

                        This tag looks like it's going to be a great solution for both the search engines and site owners, particularly online stores which dynamically generate pages, but I won't be implementing it in Miva Merchant stores until I am certain it works when the tag is also placed on the page I do want indexed. This means Google and any other significant search engine that adopts it. I may see the proof I need next week or it may take six months.

                        Ever been caught by software which has just automatically updated itself and then crashed your system (Windows springs to mind - I wonder why?)? The good news about that (if you could define it as good news) is at least you are instantly made aware of the problem. With search engine rankings, the problem may take months to show up and when you realize there is a problem and implement a fix, months for the fix to fully work.

                        I am gonna wait until I see the proof. Call me a wuss if you want. I can take it. :)

                        Comment

                          #42
                          Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                          Hmm. Turns out I may have found the proof faster than I anticipated. I hadn't noticed this before:

                          Buried in the replies to the blog post is a reply by Maile Ohye. Buried in it is this:

                          And I assume it's OK for the canonical page to have a 'link rel="canonical"' pointing to itself?

                          @Wade: Yes, it's absolutely okay to have a self-referential rel="canonical". It won't harm the system and additionally, by including a self-reference you better ensure that your mirrors have a rel=”canonical” to you.
                          So it appears a self referential canonical is OK in Google (why they wouldn't go back and edit their original blog post to make this clear is beyond me).

                          If anyone who has implemented this tag can verify that it has helped their rankings in Yahoo and/or MSN Live Search, I would be very interested in knowing.

                          Thanks,


                          Pete

                          Comment

                            #43
                            Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                            I posted a video of Google Engineer Matt Cutts giving what he calls "the directors cut" of the canonical link element explanation and other methods of solving duplicate content issues. He does address the question Pete asked and many other questions that we may not have thought of yet. I reposted the link on Morditechs Miva blog here: http://www.morditech.com/mivablog/seo/duplicate-content-solution-from-google-canonical-url's.html
                            Last edited by morditech.com; 04-05-09, 12:46 AM.

                            Comment

                              #44
                              Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                              The video answers the key question. Thanks for posting it!

                              First, we use 301 redirects on all our sites as standard procedure. We don't need canonical links on custom pages and category pages.

                              We don't index secure pages by using the nofollow attribute, so we don't need to deal with session IDs on these.

                              The only time we actually need canonical links is on the product templates when you have products listed in more than 1 category. Canonical links is a good solution in the following manner: the canonical link does not use the category code.

                              It's efficacy is simple enough to test since Google Webmaster will list duplicate content.
                              Last edited by Biffy; 04-05-09, 04:51 AM.
                              Steve Strickland
                              972-227-2065

                              Comment

                                #45
                                Re: Google penalty for SEO Settings?

                                Google is smarter than this and the algorithms don't need to be told what to do. Basic redirects and good link structure on an established website are never going to be penalized. I was suprised to see Google gobble up our new MM5.5 link stricture literally in a matter of hours when the site went live. It's a shame that such paranoia exists over offending Google. They're way ahead of us - don't worry about it!

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                                Working...
                                X