Why is the ideal rel canonical URL structure?
-
I currently have the rel canonical point to wepay.com/donations/123456. Is it worth the effort making it point to wepay.com/donations/donation-name-123456? I would also need to track histories if users change the vanity URL with this new structure.
-
Agreed - the "canonical" shouldn't just be a tag - it should reflect the actual link structure of your site, or it's not going to be as effective. Adding the additional keywords to the URL could slightly boost the profile pages, but there's always some risk to making a massive change like that. See my post from last year:
-
If I were you, I would recommend changing it. From what I understand people/websites using your service would be linking to you. A little bit of keyword would be helpful here instead of just the numbers. However if it's too much of an effort, you can ignore it. You need to evaluate the best use of time and resources available.
I hope that helps.
-
The rel=canonical is based on the actual url structure. So whatever your url structure is (your navigation), then the rel=canonical tag should match.
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
-
Doubts about the technical URL structure
Hello, first we had this structure Categorie: https://www.stoneart-design.de/armaturen/ Subcategory: https://www.stoneart-design.de/armaturen/waschtischarmaturen/ Oft i see this https://www.xxxxxxxx.de/badewelt/badmoebel/ But i have heard it has something to do with layers so google can index it better, is that true ? "Badewelt" is an extra layer ? So i thought maybe we can better change this to: https://www.stoneart-design.de/badewelt/armaturen/ https://www.stoneart-design.de/badewelt/armaturen/waschtischarmaturen/ and after seeing that i thought we can do it also like this so the keyword is on the left, and make instead "badewelt" just a "c" and put it on the back https://www.stoneart-design.de/armaturen/c/ https://www.stoneart-design.de/armaturen/waschtischarmaturen/c/ I dont understand it anymomre which is the best one, to me its seems to be the last one The reason was about this: this looks to me keyword stuffing: Attached picture Google indexed not the same time the same url, so i thougt with this we can solve it Also we can use only the word "whirlpools" in de main category and the subs only the type without "whirlpools" in text thanks Regards, Marcel SC9vi60
Technical SEO | | HolgerL0 -
Rel=Canonical For Landing Pages
We have PPC landing pages that are also ranking in organic search. We've decided to create new landing pages that have been improved to rank better in natural search. The PPC team however wants to use their original landing pages so we are unable to 301 these pages to the new pages being created. We need to block the old PPC pages from search. Any idea if we can use rel=canonical? The difference between old PPC page and new landing page is much more content to support keyword targeting and provide value to users. Google says it's OK to use rel=canonical if pages are similar but not sure if this applies to us. The old PPC pages have 1 paragraph of content followed by featured products for sale. The new pages have 4-5 paragraphs of content and many more products for sale. The other option would be to add meta noindex to the old PPC landing pages. Curious as to what you guys think. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
ECommerce Problem with canonicol , rel next , rel prev
Hi I was wondering if anyone willing to share your experience on implementing pagination and canonical when it comes to multiple sort options . Lets look at an example I have a site example.com ( i share the ownership with the rest of the world on that one 😉 ) and I sell stuff on the site example.com/for-sale/stuff1 example.com/for-sale/stuff2 example.com/for-sale/stuff3 etc I allow users to sort it by date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on . So now we have example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value etc example.com/for-sale/stuff1 **has the same result as **example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added ( that is the default sort option ) similarly for stuff2, stuff3 and so on. I cant 301 these because these are relevant for users who come in to buy from the site. I can add a view all page and rel canonical to that but let us assume its not technically possible for the site and there are tens of thousands of items in each of the for-sale pages. So I split it up in to pages of x numbers and let us assume we have 50 pages to sort through. example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value&page=2 to ...page=50 etc This is where the shit hits the fan. So now if I want to avoid duplicate issue and when it comes to page 30 of stuff1 sorted by date do I add rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29 None of this feels right to me . I am thinking of using GWT to ask G-bot not to crawl any of the sort parameters ( date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on ) and use rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=30 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 My doubts about this is that , will the link value that goes in to the pages with parameters be consolidated when I choose to ignore them via URL Parameters in GWT ? what do you guys think ?
Technical SEO | | Saijo.George0 -
What if I point my canonicals to a URL version that is not used in internal links
My web developer has pointed the "good" URLs that I use in my internal link structure (top-nav/footer) to another duplicate version of my pages. Now the URLs that receive all the canonical link value are not the ones I use on my website. is this a problem and why??? In theory the implementation is good because both have equal content. But does it harm my link equity if it directs to a URL which is not included in my internal link architecture.
Technical SEO | | DeptAgency0 -
Crawl reveals hundreds of urls with multiple urls in the url string
The latest crawl of my site revealed hundreds of duplicate page content and duplicate page title errors. When I looked it was from a large number of urls with urls appended to them at the end. For example: http://www.test-site.com/page1.html/page14.html or http://www.test-site.com/page4.html/page12.html/page16.html some of them go on for a hundred characters. I am totally stymied, as are the people at my ISP and the person who talked to me on the phone from SEOMoz. Does anyone know what's going on? Thanks So much for any help you can offer! Jean
Technical SEO | | JeanYates0 -
Should i use NoIndex, Follow & Rel=Canonical Tag In One Page?
I am having pagination problem with one of my clients site , So I am deciding to use noindex, follow tag for the Page 2,3,4 etc for not to have duplicated content issue, Because obviously SEOMoz Crawl Diagnostics showing me lot of duplicate page contents. And past 2 days i was in constant battle whether to use noindex, follow tag or rel=canonical tag for the Page 2,3,4 and after going through all the Q&A,None of them gives me crystal clear answer. So i thought "Why can't i use 2 of them together in one page"? Because I think (correct me if i am wrong) 1.noindex, follow is old and traditional way to battle with dup contents
Technical SEO | | DigitalJungle
2.rel=canonical is new way to battle with dup contents Reason to use 2 of them together is: Bot finds to the non-canonical page first and looks at the tag nofollow,index and he knows not to index that page,meantime he finds out that canonical url is something something according to the url given in the tag,NO? Help Please???0 -
Special characters in URL
Hello everybody, my question focus on special parameters in URL. I i am working for a website that use a lot of special entities in their URLS. For instance: www.mydomain.com/mykeyword1-mykeyword2%2C-1%2Cpage1.html I am about to make 301 redirect rules for all these urls to clean ones. IE: www.mydomain.com/mykeyword1-mykeyword2%2C-1%2Cpage1
Technical SEO | | objectif-mars
would become:
www.mydomain.com/mykeyword1-mykeyword.html I just wanted to know if anybody has already done this kind of "cleanup" and if i could expect a positive boost or not. Thanks0 -
Directory URL structure last / in the url
Ok, So my site's urls works like this www.site.com/widgets/ If you go to www.site.com/widgets (without the last / ) you get a 404. My site did no used to require the last / to load the page but it has over the last year and my rankings have dropped on those pages... But Yahoo and BING still indexes all my pages without the last / and it some how still loads the page if you go to it from yahoo or bing, but it looks like this in the address bar once you arrive from bing or yahoo. http://www.site.com/404.asp?404;http://site.com:80/widgets/ How do I fix this? Should'nt all the engines see those pages the same way with the last / included? What is the best structure for SEO?
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820610