Parameter Handling in Webmaster Tools - questions

[Planet13]

Hi everyone:

Do you all have an opinion on how well the Paramater Handling in google's webmaster tools works in regards to avoiding duplicate content if used in conjunction with a canonical link tag?

I am working on a new ecommerce site.

The URL structure will be along the lines of:

mydomain.com/Blue-Widgets.html?Category_Code=foo-bar

But I would like google to only index this part:

mydomain.com/Blue-Widgets.html

and to NOT index this part:

?Category_Code=foo-bar

(the purpose of the category code is to keep the category tree expanded).


I would like to have google ignore the Category_Code parameter because they could type anything into the Category_Code parameter and it would still return (more or less) the exact same page. for instance all these pages:

mydomain.com/Blue-Widgets.html?Category_Code=random-text
mydomain.com/Blue-Widgets.html?Category_Code=whiz-bang
mydomain.com/Blue-Widgets.html?Category_Code=kmawealj

would all return the same content.

Anyone have experience and suggestions with this?

Thanks in advance.

[phranque]

the rel=canonical meta tag would probably be sufficient.
suggesting that google ignores the Category_Code parameter certainly won't hurt.
Google's Canonicalization - Webmaster Tools Help [google.com] page discusses both options with links to more specific discussions.
if it means anything it lists the canonical link tag first.
=8)

[Planet13]

Thank You, Phranque for your response and the link.

I think my main concern would be passing link juice.

For example, users would see (and most likely link to) a URL appended with:

?Category_Code=this-category-code

So i know while 301's are SUPPOSED to pass link juice, I am pretty sure that tedster mentioned in another forum that it appears that since MayDay POSSIBLY less link juice is being passed through 301s

Do you have an opinion about that either way?

[tedster]

I am pretty sure that tedster mentioned in another forum that it appears that since MayDay POSSIBLY less link juice is being passed through 301s

Not my theory - and I cannot confirm it, either. If there's any truth to it, it would more likely affect cross-domain 301s only, but again, this is not my theory.

The canonical link tag, correctly applied "should" act like a 301 for link juice purposes when Google activates it. What I'm not at all clear about is how you could apply a true 301 at the server level without undoing the sorting affect that the query parameter created in the first place. In fact, I don't think you can do that, unless you cloak it for spiders only (NOT recommended).

[phranque]

that concern about leaked link juice is based on misquotes of the Eric Enge interview of Matt Cutts [stonetemple.com].
here is some paraphrasing of the relevant part of the interview:

MC: Typically, the 301 Redirect would pass PageRank.

EE: Let’s say you move from one domain to another ... is there some loss in PageRank that can take place simply because the user who originally implemented a link to the site didn't link to it on the new domain?

MC: I am not 100 percent sure about the answer. I can certainly see how there could be some loss of PageRank.
(Note: in a follow on email, Matt confirmed that this is in fact the case. There is some loss of PR through a 301).

note that the part about "loss of page rank" was specifically in reference to cross-domain redirects.

[tedster]

Thank you for that background information, Phranque. It definitely helps to clear the air on this topic.

There's also an August 5th discussion [google.com] on Google's Webmaster Help forum that asks this particular 301 question. But note that there is no reply from Google so far and no definitive research being offered, either.

So what we have right now is a kind of "SEO Rumor Mill" rolling on the topic. And some SEOs who have earned my respect over many years do NOT see a change in PR transfer via 301 since Mayday.