Using # as part of a query string in affiliate links

[rakeshmp]

random thought -

currently, our affiliates send inbound links to my domain using non-canonical urls/query string urls. as a ? sets off the start of a query string, why not use # as google seems to ignore anything past the #. this way, there wouldnt be an issue with canonicals or site.com/page.html?abc vs site.com/page.html. we would then look at # to set off the tracking code.

in theory this should work, anyone have any experience doing this?

[beu]

I'm not sure I understand what you want to do but you are correct, Google ignores #anchors in URLs as they are intended to refer to the same page in "standard" HTML.

[rakeshmp]

so this affiliate link: www.example.com/page.html?ABC would become www.example.com/page.html#ABC.

the difference is that www.example.com/page.html?ABC and www.example.com/page.html are two different URLs to google.

whereas www.example.com/page.html#ABC and www.example.com/page.html are the same URL to google.

i want to way to ensure tracking still exists (we would watch for # to set off tracking - there are no other anchors on the page) and also have the link value directed toward only one URL.

[Marcia]

If it's a page for tracking affiliate links, why do you consider it a problem having page.html?affid123 in the filepath? What kind of problems do you see with that?

[rakeshmp]

i don't want to have page.html and page.html?abc because i don't want two versions of the same page.

if page.html?abc exists and gets indexed (which is likely), i don't want the possibility that inbound links could get divided between those two urls (someone could copy/paste the affiliate url for example). i would rather have only one url that collects all link value.

so i thought that by including the #, google would ignore what followed and all affiliate links would essentially point to page.html (the tracking id would get ignored).

[Marcia]

I'm not sure I understand what you want to do

I understand perfectly.

if page.html?abc exists and gets indexed (which is likely), i don't want the possibility that inbound links could get divided between those two urls (someone could copy/paste the affiliate url for example). i would rather have only one url that collects all link value.

so i thought that by including the #, google would ignore what followed and all affiliate links would essentially point to page.html (the tracking id would get ignored).

How will you explain this to affiliates, especially to existing ones who will ask you why you're making the change?

[rakeshmp]

im not worried about that part yet. my affiliate manager is ok with pursuing this, if it makes sense.

what about a redirect with user agent detection? for example, a 301 would redirect the query string URL to the canonical but only for search engines. that way, i can maintain canonical urls and also keep the tracking parameters for human users. is that considered cloaking? i interpreted a google blog post as saying it was acceptable. any info on this?

[JohnW]

>is that considered cloaking?

Showing different content for user agent googlebot would be cloaking IMO.

Your original idea seems OK, as long as your affiliate program can handle it.

[beu]

Originally Posted by JohnW

>Showing different content for user agent googlebot would be cloaking IMO.

For sure, you don't want to treat Googlebot different from other user agents.

[rakeshmp]

the content on the page would be the same. both google and the human user would see the same thing.

the only difference is that we would be the url - canonical vs query string url. we would show google the redirect (page.html) to eliminate dupe content and show the human user the tracking code url (page.html?ABC) to preserve tracking.

the spider doesnt need to see the tracking code url?

this is the article i was looking at and the excerpt in question:
"1. When tracking visitor information, use 301 redirects to redirect URLs with parameters such as affiliateID, trackingID, etc. to the canonical version."
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...ed-by-url.html

[JohnW]

Right. 2 things though. 1)redirecting to canonical URL is good but it should be for all user agents not just Gbot. 2) These articles are not always good to follow without additional considerations, because while they may be accurate in one sense they can lead you astray in other, for example issues like certain site analytics (or affiliate tracking)can be affected by the advice given in this one.

[rakeshmp]

i meant all search engines, sorry.

let's assume that tracking, analytics, etc were all preserved. would you still consider this an acceptable practice?

[JohnW]

Assuming it doesn't break something else, using a 301 to canonicalize the urls is a good thing, but it should be done for all users not just search engines.

[beu]

Originally Posted by rakeshmp

"1. When tracking visitor information, use 301 redirects to redirect URLs with parameters such as affiliateID, trackingID, etc. to the canonical version."
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...ed-by-url.html

If you have access to both the "referrer domain" and "landing domain" it's possible to track across domains by using analytics.

For example here is one way GA could work:
http://www.google.com/support/google...03&topic=11009

That is why I didn't understand earlier, why you need to add IDs and/or redirect if your only concern is analytics reporting? In terms of affiliate reporting, if you can get away with the #anchor it might work. At the same time you may have issues in analytics where #anchors are seen as different URLS.

JohnW brings up a great point, in that analytics code will need to be in place at both domains. Without custom analytics at both domains you're not going to be able to track over a 301 redirect in the user path using analytics.

Do you merge analytics data with affiliate data?

By using a 301 you are avoiding duplicate content and hopefully tracking affiliates properly but you will throw off analytics data unless it too is set in some way to track across domains.

[metasynman]

I think a couple of you are missing the point here. When you use certain affiliate tracking via query strings, you essentially are augmenting the URL that doesn't actually exist as a separate page. In many CMS or e-commerce systems, different "pages" are created by changing the query string, whether it be to reformat a page or change the content entirely. SE's are smart enough now to know that /index.php?product=bluewidget is entirely different than /index.php?product=redwidget.

However, in the case of affiliate query strings, there IS no second page to display. /index.php?referid=Dart is the exact same page as /index.php. This query string does not augment anything based on a CMS. The server wholly ignores the query string because it's essentially invalid to the server. But in an analytics environment, they essentially track as separate pages so you can get referral data. Unfortunately, SE's also see this as a second page, the same way your analytics program would and essentially creates duplicate content since the page doesn't change with the query string.

To get back to your question, rakeshmp, using an anchor tag delineation instead of a query string WOULD technically resolve your issue of duplicate content. SE's would see it as the exact same page link, just a different starting point on the scrollbar. However, unless your analytics program can sort them out as separate links, your reporting would also see them as the same link as well. If you track from an inbound link POV, you may be able to sort out the # links from the standard ones for your reporting, but if you simply look at page views they'll all be combined under the views for /index.php. This can also be accomplished via custom tagging as well, where the tag picks up the actual URL displayed before it counts the page views. To my knowledge, you can't really accomplish this with simple analytics programs like Google Analytics, but it could be possible with something more robust. You'd just have to manually augment your tagging process to make sure it accounts for anchor links in the URL as a separate entry.

Consequently, as previously mentioned, it may also come down to your affiliate. Some affiliate networks offer the custom tagging code, but the query string formatting is built into their system. They may have to rebuild entire code functions to accommodate using a # instead of a ?. So before you go writing custom tags, I'd see if it's even a possibility for your affiliates first.

[beu]

metasynman, couldn't have said it better!

Three different issues to satisfy here and chances are you're only going to be able to pick two. (Kinda reminds me of that fox, hen, feed across the river one at a time and by row boat riddle!)

It all comes down to your affiliate network and their ability to provide highly customized solutions...