Hash as a Replacement for Absolute URL in Canonical Tags?

[stevewiideman]

Any idea why companies like Skechers would be doing this: http://screencast.com/t/ooEkATGN7EX ? I suppose it makes sense, but I've never seen it done before. If this works, why on earth would we be using absolute URLs still?

[davekeys]

I can't help but think it's an attempt to manipulate an algo. Nothing more. How does a database like Google classify the hash symbol? If you aggregate enough of them does it mean anything? Someone must be hoping so. I don't think the database places any particular value on things people think they do. If anything, they're trying to place less value on anything subject to manipulation. Even their recent devaluation of "boilerplate anchor text" is in line with that reasoning.

[stevewiideman]

Thanks Dave. I'm not sure that they purposefully thought about a way to manipulate SERPS with the hash in the canonical tag (let's just say I know what they are trying to do with everything else). I think it was an 'oops' not a "hmmm", but I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

The boilerplate anchor text is also very misinterpreted (IMO).  Reference this link:

http://screencast.com/t/bMatICEj

Note that this applies to titles and most-likely titles that are empty, don't exist at all, or are duplicate of other pages on the website. I know how easy it is to push the panic button when the Goog puts out information, and am really starting to realize why they haven't before now (and feel a bit guilty for whining so much in the past about it).

See you Saturday?

[AlanMosley]

I have seen this title replacement when the title is spamed, stuffed with keywords