So I have a website which displays all my content vertically. (like modern websites often do these days). Thus I can't create static links to each section. I'm currently handling the scrolling with javascript. My navigation looks like this.

    <li><a href="#services">Services</a></li>
    <li><a href="#references">References</a></li>
    <li><a href="#blog">Blog</a></li>
    <li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li>

I also created 301 redirect links with htaccess. E.g. /services which leads to /#services. If I were to use them in my navigation, I'd have to trigger the scrolling with the onpopstate event. Thats not really a problem, but would searchengines accept that kind of setup ?

I also created a sitemap and submitted it to google, but the indexing is still pending.

  • You say you display all your content vertically. Does this mean all these sections, including the entire blog are all on one big html page? Or are you using javascript to being the content into the page when they click those <li> in your navigation? Sep 1, 2012 at 15:02
  • The blog section is just a preview of the latest articles. The real blog is located on a subdomain.
    – asdf
    Sep 1, 2012 at 16:14
  • This is 1 page? All the content is visible and the page just scrolls to the appropriate section?
    – MrWhite
    Sep 1, 2012 at 16:19
  • Having one big page of content may be trendy but it sucks. Fix that.
    – JamesRyan
    Oct 1, 2013 at 11:22
  • It depends on how much content you have. I think it's totally okay with websites like this one: patrick-wied.at
    – asdf
    Oct 2, 2013 at 16:13

1 Answer 1


You have 1 page. All the content is loaded as the page loads and all the content is visible. So, there is only 1 page and 1 canonical URL that identifies that page. (This is not an AJAX loaded page where sections are loaded later on request.)

Search engines (ie. Google) index pages, not parts of pages. So, I can't see as there is any benefit (from an SEO viewpoint) in attempting to identify these separate sections as different pages, when they are not. You could even end up with duplicate content issues!? IMO the sitemap (if indeed you supply one at all) should have just 1 page.

However, Google might actually handle this for you and offer the appropriate link to your sub section in the SERPs. I'm not sure how prevalent this is, but Google is able to index in-page links to some extent. For example:

Example#1 Search Google for: the document body site:www.w3.org

You will see that the very top result shows:

the document body - in page link example

"Jump to The BODY element" is an in-page anchor half way down the page, which is simply linked to from the page contents at the top.

Example#2 Search Google for: google safe search

Part way down the SERPs (currently #3) you will see:

Google safe search - in page link example

I would have hoped that Google would be able to identify both elements with an id="foo" and named anchors eg. <a name="foo"></a> as the target. But all the examples I've seen in the wild use named anchors in order to identify the target. And I've also only seen it applied to large/established sites?! (But that might be partly because many sites don't use named anchors these days?)

Here is some information from Google themselves (Sept 2009) on "Using named anchors to identify sections on your pages":

  • Hum, I didn't plan on having duplicate content, just thought it'd look more appealing to have a sitemap. On the w3 page the anchor is set by the name attribute. In my case it's a section id, does that make a difference ?
    – asdf
    Sep 1, 2012 at 19:26
  • Whether it is actually duplicate content could be debatable, but if you have 301 redirects to URLs that only differ by their fragment identifier, which Google generally ignores anyway when crawling, then you actually only have 1 URL. If you did somehow static-ise the URLs then you would have different URLs to the same (duplicate) content. Yes, unfortunately all the examples in the wild that I've seen use a named anchor <a name="foo"></a> - I'll update my answer.
    – MrWhite
    Sep 3, 2012 at 12:34
  • More discussion on the relevance of the fragment identifier in search: productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/C0BTQOzy46U
    – MrWhite
    Sep 3, 2012 at 15:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.