some facts of SEO: One of the problems I have with the rel canonical tag, is that websites lean on it in lieu of a strong and consistent internal link profile. The idea that a page is linked-to with a non-canonical URL (such as required by analytics like Coremetrics) on prominent locations of the site, but the non-canonical version actually has a rel=canonical tag to the canonical version, and therefore the problem of crawl duplication and link equity dispersion is averted, is absolutely wrong. Each URL is scored as a separate and unique entity. When non-canonical versions are linked within a site—even when they have rel=canonical tags implemented on them—internal PageRank dilution occurs and the website will have problems with SEO. Sure, Google Webmaster Tools (and Yahoo! before them) give us a parameter handling option, but we have found this to be pretty ineffective. If the SEO teams are especially concerned about canonicalization, they may also employ XML sitemaps to help provide another hint to engines about a site’s preferred URLs. How easy it is for these to be in error, as well, for the same reasons as illustrated above. Then there’s the problem of external links. It is my opinion that as much as 40% of the link equity a URL has earned through its back links will rot away when it is 301 redirected. In our experience, especially very recently, it may even be more than that. It is absolutely essential that when important URLs move or change, sites linking to the moved URL are contacted and have their links updated. The days of 301′ing a URL and garnering most of the link equity on the new page are gone it seems, at least on Google. Thanks and Regards, Swathi Business Development Officer SEOpals freelanceguru.org/
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:28:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015