Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
-
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture.
The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the
Home Page - Converse.com
Marimekko category page (flash version)
http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko
Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled)
http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko
Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes
http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php
The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google.
When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page.
-----
Marimekko - Converse
All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ...
www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached
So my issues are…
Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages?
Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages?
Any recommendations on to what to do about this?
Thanks,
SEOsurfer
-
Tom,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the site and giving a detailed response. I’ve been doing some research myself and my findings mirror your assessment. Thank you for recommended action items too. Converse uses http://www.asual.com/swfaddress/ which is a good site experience but as you pointed out not so hot for SEO.
--SEOsurfer
-
Great question!
Firstly - unfortunately, Steve's suggestion isn't going to be viable for you. The # portion of the URL is not available to your code server-side, so you won't be able to determine where the rel canonical should point.
Furthermore, if they are committed to keeping the flash for now, and all as a single unit so one URL (the homepage), then you are going to have to accept that some juice intended for subpages is going to go to the homepage. You cannot do anything about that aspect, so you need to focus on the rest of the problem. However, whilst far from ideal, at least the juice is hitting the site somehow.
So… what to do?
Firstly, I'd start getting into the mindset of thinking in terms of the HTML site as the main/canonical site, and the Flash site as the 'enhanced experience' version. In this way, the HTML version is going to be the version that should be crawled by Google, and should be linked to.
Actions:
- Setup detection for mobile user-agents (out of preference I'd say all, but at least those known not to support flash, such as iPhone/iPad) and search engine bots, and ensure they get served the HTML version. Currently your homepage requires a click through on iPad offering an impossible Flash download, why not serve them the HTML page off the bat.
Is this cloaking? No! The HTML version is the main version, remember? It's no more cloaking than if you detected the user agent and then chose to serve the Flash version to Googlebot.
I actually discussed this with Jane Copeland at the fantastic Distilled link building event a couple of weeks back, and she agreed with me and said if it would stand up to a manual inspection then it is the right course of action.
-
Get all links in articles, press releases, directories or whatever else that are linking to specific pages and are originating from in house (or any source you have control over) to link to the HTML pages.
-
If the user arrives, has Flash and has arrived to an HTML link, you can now redirect to the Flash link for that page so they get the 'enhanced experience'. Don't use a 301 redirect -- remember the HTML version is the main version!
-
If the user arrives via a Flash link, but doesn't have Flash, but does have javascript you can detect the # variable and redirect them to the HTML page to help them along.
-
Educate the relevant stakeholders regarding point 2. I see you have a 'flashmode=0' option, tell them about this and how to use it get the URLs they need.
So where does this leave us?
-
The search engines can crawl all your lovely content, and they can ignore the flash version completely.
-
You are getting inbound links to specific pages. These pages have their own titles and meta descriptions… and content! Because they are the real site!
-
Users with Flash arriving via these links are landing on the correct Flash page of the site and are experiencing the rich site that you want them to.
-
Users arriving without Flash are getting the correct page if they arrive via an HTML URL. If they arrive via a Flash url then they get the correct page if they have javascript on (e.g iPad users), or they get the fallback of the homepage (rare).
I had a client with an almost identical situation, and I rolled out an almost identical solution to this, and they got crawled very quickly, shot up in Google and have stayed there for months.
Hope it helps. Let us know how you get on!
-
It's definitely a drag to have your links diluted between 2 versions of the site. There are a few solutions you can use, but the easiest would probably be to start using the rel=canonical tag on the flash version which points back to the same or similar page on the HTML site. That way, the engines know that the version you want indexed is the HTML version.
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
-
Mobile site content and main site content
Help, pls! I have one main site and a mobile version of that site (m.domain.com). The main site has more pages, more content, different named urls. The main site has consistently done well in Google. The mobile site has not: the mobile site is buried. I am working on adding more content to the mobile site, but am concerned about duplicate content. Could someone pls tell me the best way to deal with these two versions of our site? I can't use rel=canonical because the urls do not correspond to the same names on the main site, or can I? Does this mean I need to change the url names, offer different content (abridged), etc? I really am at a loss as to how to interpret Google's rules for this. Could someone please tell me what I am doing wrong? Any help or tips would GREATLY appreciated!!!!! Thanks!
Technical SEO | | lfrazer0 -
I have a mobile version and a standard version of my website. I'd like to show users some pages on the non-mobile site but keep googlebot mobile out. Is that ok?
On the mobile version not all the content of the normal site is available to the users. Since we didn't want googlebot mobile to index the non-mobile site, all the non-existent pages were returned with a 404 error. But now we'd like to show the mobile users these pages and send them to the normal site. If we allow the users to see these pages, is it ok to block googlebot mobile so these non-mobile pages are not indexed by googlebot mobile or will that create some issues for google?
Technical SEO | | bgs0 -
Open Site Explorer Question
In OSE I have 3 of my top 5 pages as store.com, store.com/Default.asp, and store.com/default.asp -- I have a canonical version of at store.com/default.asp. I have inbound links coming to all three urls -- b/c OSE is listing these as seperate pages does that mean the link juice is not being consolidated? Or is this not something to worry about?
Technical SEO | | IOSC0 -
How many pages should my site have?
Right now I think I only have 36. What is a good amount of pages to have? Any ideas on ways to add relevant pages to my site? I was thinking about starting a message board. Also, I have a free tech support chat room, and was thinking about posting the logs somewhere on the site. Does that sound like a good idea? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | eugenecomputergeeks0 -
Difference between changing sitename.com and sitename.com/ info?
my crawl is showing duplicate content between my sitename.com and sitename.com/ i remember the beginner's guide referencing that these are separate websites - but how do you modify their title info on a wordpress.org blog, and what's the difference between getting to these two sites? also, are there any wordpress.org plugins to mass fix meta descriptions, and not founds, retroactively? i have all in one seo, but not sure how to apply the changes retroactively. a new crawl shows too many to fix manually (89+) missing metas, mostly due to multiple pages on categories, etc. and other time consuming, tedious generations.. any help appreciated, thanks
Technical SEO | | prospects0 -
Too many links on my site
Hi there everybody, I am a total SEO newbie and i am burning with questions. I had my site crawled and found out that it contains too many links. The reason is that it is a site where I constantly write news and articles and each one of them is a new Joomla item, thus a new link. I actually thought lots of content is good for SEO. How am I supposed to reduce the link amount?
Technical SEO | | polyniki0 -
Javascript bad for SEO?
If we utilize javascript to pull information from a database to display on a site, is that bad for SEO? Can search engines still see the data?
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
How do I create an RSS feed for my site?
I do NOT have a cms website. just php/html. How do I create a feed so I can register it with feedburner? Not for my blog just the website its self.
Technical SEO | | bozzie3110