Last Part Breadcrumb Trail Active or Non-Active
-
Breadcrumbs have been debated quite a bit in the past. Some claim that the last part of the breadcrumb trail should be non-active to inform users they have reached the end. In other words, Do not link the current page to itself.
On the other hand, that portion of the breadcrumb would won't be displayed in the SERPS and if it was may lead to a higher CTR.
Foe example: www.website.com/fans/panasonic-modelnumber
panasonic-modelnumber would not be active as part of the breadcrumb.
What is your take?
-
I would usually say no but so many sites seem to link to that same page they are viewing... If you are doing it for schema markup in Google SERPs all their examples show linking to the last part of the breadcrumb, see google rich snippets
If you want to inform users you can examine adding a text element for the last part but most just leave the last part as the page you are viewing.
-
Hi
I believe breadcrumbs are very valuable and you should not turn them for the home page every other page should have a breadcrumb.
There are methods you want to show up in the SERPS but honestly you page title should reflect the relevance of the page to the person searching therefore showing people the breadcrumb is not a bad thing in my opinion.
All best,
Tom
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Trailing slash on the main website - do i need a 301 ? Is my 301 correct?
Hello, Im a bit confused. If i use a tool like majestic to look at my website links, www.example.com and www.example.com**/ have huge difference in their authority.** Do i need to make a 301 redirect to the site with the splash or not? Will google itself understand that they are my main site? Is this the "http://www.website.com.com/"/> correct canonical? Meaning it has trailing splash and also RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.example.com [NC]
Technical SEO | | advertisingcloud
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 [L,R=301] - this one has trailing splash, correct?0 -
Our rankings for "Tree Service" dropped last month
Hi, we've had a page www.savatree.com/tree-service.html which was ranking top 1-12 on the google rankings but has complete dropped out. We don't have any duplicate errors from that page on here. Do you have any suggestions? We do rank highly on Bing and Yahoo (1-2 pages). We can't figure whats going on.
Technical SEO | | SavATree0 -
Duplicate Content Issue WWW and Non WWW
One of my sites got hit with duplicate content a while ago because Google seemed to be considering hhtp, https, www, and non ww versions of the site all different sites. We thought we fixed it, but for some reason https://www and just https:// are giving us duplicate content again. I can't seem to figure out why it keeps doing this. The url is https://bandsonabudget.com if any of you want to see if you can figure out why I am still having this issue.
Technical SEO | | Michael4g1 -
I broke Google! (random snippet appearing in non-personalized search)
Hello all, so either I broke Google or Google doesn't know how to index my page properly (onradpad.com/paymyrent). If you search "pay rent with credit card", whether you're logged in to Google or not, you'll see a snippet from our signup process (which is js) right under the ad slot in the serps (Awesome! You're signed up!) and it will repeat where my meta data should be. It's been like this for well over a month now and I cannot figure out how to get rid of it. Additionally, if you search for the branded title of the page "pay with radpad", it pulls language that's not on that page (perhaps from somewhere in the js signup form). Though if you search for "pay rent with radpad" you'll see what my meta description is supposed to look like in the serps. Any ideas as to what the heck is going on?
Technical SEO | | RadMatt0 -
OSE says URL redirects to URL with trailing slash but it doesn't.
Site is www.example.com/folder/us and OSE says this URL redirects to www.example.com/folder/us/, but it does not. When I look at the OSE report for the latter version with the "/" it says "No Data Available For This URL". Why would that be? The original URL is www.example.com and it redirects to www.example.com/folder/us. Is this anything I need to worry about? I thought that the trailing / doesn't really mean much anymore but nonetheless, why does it think it redirects there?
Technical SEO | | rock220 -
Non-Canonical Pages still Indexed. Is this normal?
I have a website that contains some products and the old structure of the URL's was definitely not optimal for SEO purposes. So I created new SEO friendly URL's on my site and decided that I would use the canonical tags to transfer all the weight of the old URL's to the New URL's and ensure that the old ones would not show up in the SERP's. Problem is this has not quite worked. I implemented the canonical tags about a month ago but I am still seeing the old URL's indexed in Google and I am noticing that the cache date of these pages was only about a week ago. This leads me to believe that the spiders have been to the pages and seen the new canonical tags but are not following them. Is this normal behavior and if so, can somebody explain to me why? I know I could have just 301 redirected these old URL's to the new ones but the process I would need to go through to have that done is much more of a battle than to just add the canonical tags and I felt that the canonical tags would have done the job. Needless to say the client is not too happy right now and insists that I should have just used the 301's. In this case the client appears to be correct but I do not quite understand why my canonical tags did not work. Examples Below- Old Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/productid.3254235 New Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name Canonical tag on both pages: rel="canonical" href="http://www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name"/> Thanks guys for the help on this.
Technical SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt0 -
Breadcrumbs how important are they
Hi, i am working on a joomla template site and i am just wondering how important the breadcrumbs are. I have one installed at the moment but what i have noticed is, what is showing on the main menu is showing on the breadcrumbs so i am not sure if i really need the breadcrumbs module. any help and advice would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Directory URL structure last / in the url
Ok, So my site's urls works like this www.site.com/widgets/ If you go to www.site.com/widgets (without the last / ) you get a 404. My site did no used to require the last / to load the page but it has over the last year and my rankings have dropped on those pages... But Yahoo and BING still indexes all my pages without the last / and it some how still loads the page if you go to it from yahoo or bing, but it looks like this in the address bar once you arrive from bing or yahoo. http://www.site.com/404.asp?404;http://site.com:80/widgets/ How do I fix this? Should'nt all the engines see those pages the same way with the last / included? What is the best structure for SEO?
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820610