Non-Canonical Pages still Indexed. Is this normal?
-
I have a website that contains some products and the old structure of the URL's was definitely not optimal for SEO purposes. So I created new SEO friendly URL's on my site and decided that I would use the canonical tags to transfer all the weight of the old URL's to the New URL's and ensure that the old ones would not show up in the SERP's. Problem is this has not quite worked. I implemented the canonical tags about a month ago but I am still seeing the old URL's indexed in Google and I am noticing that the cache date of these pages was only about a week ago.
This leads me to believe that the spiders have been to the pages and seen the new canonical tags but are not following them. Is this normal behavior and if so, can somebody explain to me why?
I know I could have just 301 redirected these old URL's to the new ones but the process I would need to go through to have that done is much more of a battle than to just add the canonical tags and I felt that the canonical tags would have done the job. Needless to say the client is not too happy right now and insists that I should have just used the 301's. In this case the client appears to be correct but I do not quite understand why my canonical tags did not work.
Examples Below-
Old Pages:
www.awebsite.com/something/something/productid.3254235
New Pages:
www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name
Canonical tag on both pages:
rel="canonical" href="http://www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name"/> Thanks guys for the help on this.
-
It can take a while. I disagree very slightly with Alan and EGOL on one point - while 301s are traditionally more appropriate here, I often find that canonicals are pretty strong (and more than a hint). Both suffer the same problem, though - the signal has to be crawled and processed, and that doesn't always take right away. I haven't seen any reports on it taking 2, 3, etc. times to happen, but I've definitely seen a page re-cache without the indexation signals beign honored.
Are these true duplicates or did something change in the interim a bit? If the duplicates don't seem like true duplicates or you put 1000s of them out there all at once, Google could choose to ignore the canonicals.
If these really seem stuck, though, switching to 301s is harmless, and for a permanent URL change, it is probably the better way to go. I wouldn't expect that to kick in instantly either, though.
-
Yes... I agree with Alan. Canonical is a hint.
We put rel=canonical on about 250 pages in early February. As of today about 1/2 of those pages are still in the SERPs. The numbers are falling but this is really really slow to implement.
If you have done everything correctly it will probably work but requires patience.
-
Alan, I appreciate the help. I will go with this and see what happens and try to find those videos. Graci.
-
Matt cutts has said it a few times in videos, i could not tell you what ones without doing a far bit of searching.
-
Yes they should, but 301's and canonicals leak link juice, so you want your links to go directly to the correct page where you can.
See half way down this page, you will see just how easy it is to do all this, with a few clicks.
http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/microsoft-technologies-and-seo-web-development
for you it may not be quiest as easy as you are converting from id to product name, but if you look into the url rewrite module a bit further you will see it is posible to do this once for all pages
-
Also do you know of any documentation that states that it takes a few passes for a canonical tag to be honored and also for 301's as well? That would really help me explain my initial thoughts on using the canonical tag.
-
I get the part about the 301's and I believe we have iis7 but between departments, just not as simple of a change especially regarding the number of products I have to do this for, 800+.
Regarding the links to the old URL, it was my belief that with the canonical tag, that weight should transfer over to the the new URL as well or was I mistaken on that?
-
You seem to have done everything ok, but from my understanding google does not honer 301's or caninicals first crawl, they wait a few times to make sure its not a mistake.
What sort of server are you using? if you are using windows with iis7 is is very easy to impliment the urlrewites and corasponding 301's
i would 301, a canonical is a hint, a301 is a directive. and also if people stil go to your old pages, they may make a link to the old page rather then the new url.
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
-
Google still listing pages from old domain after 2 change requests
Good Morning I put forward the following question in December 2014 https://moz.com/community/q/google-still-listing-old-domain as pages from our old domain www.fhr-net.co.uk were still indexed in Google. We have submitted two change request in WMT, the most recent was over 6 months ago yet the old pages are still being indexed and we can't see why that would be Any advice would be appreciated
Technical SEO | | Ham19790 -
Changed URL of all web pages to a new updated one - Keywords still pick the old URL
A month ago we updated our website and with that we created new URLs for each page. Under "On-Page", the keywords we put to check ranking on are still giving information on the old urls of our websites. Slowly, some new URLs are popping up. I'm wondering if there's a way I can manually make the keywords feedback information from the new urls.
Technical SEO | | Champions0 -
Targeting multiple keywords with index page
Quick keyword question.... I just started working with a client that is ranking fairly well for a number of keywords with his index page. Right now he has a bunch of duplicate titles, descriptions, etc across the entire site. There are 5 different keywords in the title of the index page alone. I am wondering if it OK to target 3 different keywords with the index page? Or, if I should cut it down to 1. Think blue widget, red widget, and widget making machines. I want each of the individual keywords to improve but don't want to lose what I have either. Any ideas? THANKS!!!!
Technical SEO | | SixTwoInteractive0 -
Rel=Canonical, WWW vs non WWW and SEO
Okay so I'm a bit of a loss here. For what ever reason just about every single Wordpress site I has will turn www.mysite.com into mysite.com in the browser bar. I assume this is the rel=canonical tag at work, there are no 301s on my site. When I use the Open Site Explorer and type in www.mysite.com it shows a domain authority of around 40 and a few hundred backlinks... and then I get the message. Oh Hey! It looks like that URL redirects to XXXXXX. Would you like to see data for <a class="clickable redirects">that URL instead</a>? So if I click to see this data instead I have less than half of that domain authority and about 2 backlinks. *** Does this make a difference SEO wise? Should my non WWW be redirecting to my WWW instead because that's where the domain authority and backlinks are? Why am I getting two different domain authority and backlink counts if they are essentially the same? Or am I wrong and all that link juice and authority passes just the same?
Technical SEO | | twilightofidols0 -
What happens to content under a category page that is not indexed?
We are reevaluating our URL structure. We have a flat architecture but would like to add subfolders per recommendations here and elsewhere. Some of our category pages are ad heavy/content light so we have them no indexed. We do have lots of quality content on the site that we would like to put under some of these keyword categories. Should we leave it flat? If Google does not see that category page then there will be no link from the homepage to the content page? Now: homepage/content-page Proposed: homepage/category/content-page (category is not indexed)
Technical SEO | | hoch0 -
Duplicate index.php/webpage pages on website. Help needed!
Hi Guys, Having a really frustrating problem with our website. It is a Joomla 1.7 site and we have some duplicate page issues. What is happening is that we have a webpage, lets say domain.com/webpage1 and then we also have domain.com/index.php/webpage1. Google is seeing these as duplicate pages and is causing me some real SEO problems. I have tried setting up a 301 redirect but it wn't let me redirect /index.php/webpage1 to /webpage1. Anyone have any ideas or plugins that can be used to sort this out? Any help will be really appreciated! Matt.
Technical SEO | | MatthewBarby0 -
Is it better to delete web pages that I don't want anymore or should I 301 redirect all of the pages I delete to the homepage or another live page?
Is it better for SEO to delete web pages that I don't want anymore or should I 301 redirect all of the pages I delete to the homepage or another live page?
Technical SEO | | CustomOnlineMarketing0 -
Indexed non www. content
Google has indexed a lot of old non www.mysite.com contnet my page at mysite.com still answers queries, should I 301 every url on it? Google has indexed about 200 pages all erogenous 404's, old directories and dynamic content at mysite.com www.mysite.com has 12 pages listed that are all current. Is this affecting my rankings?
Technical SEO | | adamzski0