To "Rel canon" or not to "Rel canon" that is the question
-
Looking for some input on a SEO situation that I'm struggling with. I guess you could say it's a usability vs Google situation. The situation is as follows:
On a specific shop (lets say it's selling t-shirts). The products are sorted as follows each t-shit have a master and x number of variants (a color).
we have a product listing in this listing all the different colors (variants) are shown. When you click one of the t-shirts (eg: blue) you get redirected to the product master, where some code on the page tells the master that it should change the color selectors to the blue color. This information the page gets from a query string in the URL.
Now I could let Google index each URL for each color, and sort it out that way. except for the fact that the text doesn't change at all. Only thing that changes is the product image and that is changed with ajax in such a way that Google, most likely, won't notice that fact. ergo producing "duplicate content" problems.
Ok! So I could sort this problem with a "rel canon" but then we are in a situation where the only thing that tells Google that we are talking about a blue t-shirt is the link to the master from the product listing.
We end up in a situation where the master is the only one getting indexed, not a problem except for when people come from google directly to the product, I have no way of telling what color the costumer is looking for and hence won't know what image to serve her.
Now I could tell my client that they have to write a unique text for each varient but with 100 of thousands of variant combinations this is not realistic ir a real good solution.
I kinda need a new idea, any input idea or brain wave would be very welcome.
-
Unfortunately, there are still a lot of gaps in how Google handles even the typical e-commerce site. Even issues like search pagination are incredibly complicated on large sites, and Google's answers are inconsistent at best. The only thing I'd say for sure is that I no longer believe the "let us handle it" advice. I've seen it go wrong too many times. I've become a big believer in controlling your own indexation.
-
I completely agree on every point (as I tried to explain above) and I could not myself come up with a better solution, but thought I might give you guys a chance before jumping the rel-canon band wagon
To be honest I didn't expect any amazing ideas but one could hope that I hadn't thought about everything, unfortunately it seems I had.
thx for your time everyone
-
I'm afraid there's no perfect solution. The canonical tag probably is the best bet here - the risk of letting thousands of near-duplicates into the index is much greater than the cost of not landing people on specific colors.
Keep in mind that, once Google removes the color variants, only the "master" product page will appear in search. So, users won't really come into the site with a color intent (except in their heads). Whether that's good or bad for usability isn't clear. On the one hand, it would be nice to rank for every color and have users with a color in mind land on that specific product. On the other hand, some users don't have a color in mind (they know what they like when they see it), and landing on the main product pages shows them all available options. It really depends on your customers, but there are pros and cons, in terms of usability and conversion.
There's no magic Option #3, though - I'm 99% confident saying that. The risks of indexing all color variants post-Panda are relatively high, and I think you'll gain more from consolidating than you'll lose by leaving them all.
-
Hi and thx for your reply.
I agree with you, as I tried to explain in my post. But this doesn't really help me with the users from Google not getting served with the correct picture. Possible leading to a high bounce rate. Plus I have the added problem that Google will see the master as less relevant for the colors as keywords. Since the keyword won't be in the page title, h1,h2,ex.. so all in all the page will have a very low relevance for the key-phrase "blue t-shirt".
Hence I'm looking for a different solution
-
This is exactly the kind of situation that rel="canonical" exists for. Product color is one of those classic examples SEOs bring up when explaining canonicalization. Don't trust Google to figure things out on their own - make it clear to them that these pages are related and should be treated as such.
-
or maybe my explanation is just crappy
-
Ah, sorry. Miss-understood the question then.
-
Hi there and thanks for your input. But what you mention is exactly what I already have (maybe I just explain it badly), I was kinda looking for a different amazingly brilliant solutions that I hadn't thought of myself
But your thoughts and time is very much appreciated. If you have any other ideas do let me know
-
Hi Rene,
The first impression after reading your question is that I meat the same situation as on faceted navigation.
Still this is something different. My advice would be to put the rel=canonical on and get rid of duplicate content. This way you will have one default image, then the visitor can choose what they need (and you just reload the image).
Writing all the hundreds of thousands of unique texts wouldn't be the solution I believe. Still you can use some parameters in the "facets" such as a #color so if people would like to share this content with their friends they can distribute a visitor friendly URL. That would be my choice.
I hope that helped,
Istvan
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
-
Internal search pages (and faceted navigation) solutions for 2018! Canonical or meta robots "noindex,follow"?
There seems to conflicting information on how best to handle internal search results pages. To recap - they are problematic because these pages generally result in lots of query parameters being appended to the URL string for every kind of search - whilst the title, meta-description and general framework of the page remain the same - which is flagged in Moz Pro Site Crawl - as duplicate, meta descriptions/h1s etc. The general advice these days is NOT to disallow these pages in robots.txt anymore - because there is still value in their being crawled for all the links that appear on the page. But in order to handle the duplicate issues - the advice varies into two camps on what to do: 1. Add meta robots tag - with "noindex,follow" to the page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII
This means the page will not be indexed with all it's myriad queries and parameters. And so takes care of any duplicate meta /markup issues - but any other links from the page can still be crawled and indexed = better crawling, indexing of the site, however you lose any value the page itself might bring.
This is the advice Yoast recommends in 2017 : https://yoast.com/blocking-your-sites-search-results/ - who are adamant that Google just doesn't like or want to serve this kind of page anyway... 2. Just add a canonical link tag - this will ensure that the search results page is still indexed as well.
All the different query string URLs, and the array of results they serve - are 'canonicalised' as the same.
However - this seems a bit duplicitous as the results in the page body could all be very different. Also - all the paginated results pages - would be 'canonicalised' to the main search page - which we know Google states is not correct implementation of canonical tag
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html this picks up on this older discussion here from 2012
https://moz.com/community/q/internal-search-rel-canonical-vs-noindex-vs-robots-txt
Where the advice was leaning towards using canonicals because the user was seeing a percentage of inbound into these search result pages - but i wonder if it will still be the case ? As the older discussion is now 6 years old - just wondering if there is any new approach or how others have chosen to handle internal search I think a lot of the same issues occur with faceted navigation as discussed here in 2017
https://moz.com/blog/large-site-seo-basics-faceted-navigation1 -
Google webmaster tools showing "no data available" for links to site, why?
In my google webmaster account I'm seeing all the data in other categories except links to my site. When I click links to my site I get a "no data available" message. Does anyone know why this is happening? And if so, what to do to fix it? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nicktaylor10 -
How much does "overall site semantic theme" influence rankings?
OK. I've optimized sites before that are dedicated to 1, 2 or 3 products and or services. These sites inherently talk about one main thing - so the semantics of the content across the whole site reflect this. I get these ranked well on a local level. Now, take an e-commerce site - which I am working on - 2000 products, all of which are quite varied - cookware, diningware, art, decor, outdoor, appliances... there is a lot of different semantics throughout the site's different pages. Does this influence the ranking possibilities? Your opinion and time is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20100 -
The same "About" page on multiple WordPress microsites
Hello there, I have over 10 WordPress websites that all have the same "About" page because the same company. I have concerns that this will adversely affect my sites and i'm looking for the best way to deal with this. I was either going to remove the "About" page with Google Webmaster Tools and robots.txt or use the canonical meta tag on that page. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SpaMedica0 -
Can links indexed by google "link:" be bad? or this is like a good example by google
Can links indexed by google "link:" be bad? Or this is like a good example shown by google. We are cleaning our links from Penguin and dont know what to do with these ones. Some of them does not look quality.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bele0 -
If google ignores links from "spammy" link directories ...
Then why does SEO moz have this list: http://www.seomoz.org/dp/seo-directory ?? Included in that list are some pretty spammy looking sites such as: <colgroup><col width="345"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | adriandg
| http://www.site-sift.com/ |
| http://www.2yi.net/ |
| http://www.sevenseek.com/ |
| http://greenstalk.com/ |
| http://anthonyparsons.com/ |
| http://www.rakcha.com/ |
| http://www.goguides.org/ |
| http://gosearchbusiness.com/ |
| http://funender.com/free_link_directory/ |
| http://www.joeant.com/ |
| http://www.browse8.com/ |
| http://linkopedia.com/ |
| http://kwika.org/ |
| http://tygo.com/ |
| http://netzoning.com/ |
| http://goongee.com/ |
| http://bigall.com/ |
| http://www.incrawler.com/ |
| http://rubberstamped.org/ |
| http://lookforth.com/ |
| http://worldsiteindex.com/ |
| http://linksgiving.com/ |
| http://azoos.com/ |
| http://www.uncoverthenet.com/ |
| http://ewilla.com/ |0 -
Analytics Question?
Is there a way to see in GA traffic from other IP address's. I want to subtract all the times I visit the site from my IP and get a real traffic %.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEObleu.com0 -
Where does "Pages Similar" link text come from?
When I type in a competitor name (in this case "buycostumes") Google shows several related websites in it's "Pages Similar to..." section at the bottom of the page: My question, can anyone tell me where the text comes from that Google uses as the link. Our competitors have nice branded links and our is just a keyword. I can find nothing on-page that Google is using so it must be coming from someplace off-page, but where?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | costume0