Meta refresh - nojavascript url

[mastermindtoys]

seomox is telling me that I am getting a page that is not being indexed or crawled and since the crawl status code is 200 and there are no robots the meta-refresh url must be the problem.

the meta refresh url is different than the on page report card url as it's the nojavascript url which my developer says should be ok. see his comments below.

The is redirecting to http://mastermindtoys.com/store/nojavascript.html only in case if the JavaScript is disabled in the client browser. This is the right way to do it, I don’t understand  why this might be a problem, otherwise MM has to implement Noscript pages that have a real content. I didn’t get what’s wrong about accessibility. The code 200 means it is accessible, and yes there is nothing to access if JavaScript is disabled on browser. I think there are no modern retail sites that would do any sensible business with the scripting disabled in browsers.The H1 is really present 2 times and second occurrence can be removed, though I highly doubt about importance of this change.Regarding duplicates – what URLs are considered duplicates? Can you please send me examples?I am not aware of canonical URL problem for MM site unless we consider old .asp links as duplicate links of the canonical product pages. I would appreciate if SEOMoz gave us an example what they mean.I suspect that the page is not getting indexed as a result of this or I'm just not getting a good score. Which is it?

[RyanKent]

I am not a coding expert but I did check several other quality websites: att.com, verizonwireless.com, sprint.com. All three sites use iframes to present the page used when javascript is disabled. None use the meta refresh tag.

Example: <noscript><iframe src="http://view.atdmt.com/iaction/m0nssc_20HomePageNextel_1" width="1" height="1" frameborder="0" scrolling="No" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" topmargin="0" leftmargin="0"></iframe>noscript>

I would presume the crawler is simply seeing the meta refresh tag and not considering the tag is wrapped in a

<noscript>tag. It could be this is an issue with the SEOmoz crawler and Google MAY handle the situation better. I would suggest asking your developer if he could present the page in an iframe as the sites mentioned above do.</p> <p>Your developer's solution is fine from a coding perspective. It may be an issue from a SEO point of view. It would require specific testing to make a determination of this issue.</p></noscript>

[mastermindtoys]

Thanks Kent. I appreciate the effort you made. If this ia a seomoz crawler issue and google handles it well, I would be disappointed in seomoz and wonder why they wouldn't answer this?

[RyanKent]

We all wish the tools were perfect. The reality is they are software and will be upgraded over their lifetime. This particular issue is a pretty narrow focus.

If it is indeed just an issue with the SEOmoz crawler I would recommend reporting it to the help desk so they have an opportunity to investigate the matter and hopefully list it as a bug which can be addressed.