Canonical links apparently not used by google
-
hi,
I do have an ecommerce website (www.soundcreation.ro) which in the last 3 months had a drop in the SERP. Started to look around in GWT what is happening. Google is reporting a lot of duplicate meta-tags (and meta-titles problem). But 99% of them had already canonical links setted. I tried to optimize my product listings with the new "prev", "next" tags and introduced also the "view-all" canonical link to help Google identify the appropiate product listing pages.
SeoMoz is not reporting thos duplicate meta issues.
Here is an example of the same page with different links, but with the same common canonical and reported by GWT "duplicate title tag":
http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10-pageall/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10_999/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-electro-acustice-cid10_1510/What could be the issue?- only that gwt is not refreshing as should be, keeping old errors?- if so, then there is an other serious issue because of why our PR is dropping on several pages?- do we have other problem with the site, which ends up with google penalizing us? Thank you for your ideas!
-
Thank you Peter!
That "underscore" issue just pass through my attention. I will change it now, and hopefully it reduces some of the warnings. However this "page-all" and prev/next feature I've introduced just in the last 2 weeks. So the main part could be something else.
Now the rel="prev/next" feature I suspended too on the website, so I am really curious on the results.
Much appreciated your feedback! Thanks again!
-
I wouldn't both canonical to the "View All" AND use rel=prev/next - that could be sending mixed signals to Google. I'd let one do its work, if possible. There's another issue, though - you're canonicaling to:
http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10-pageall/
...but the "View All" link goes to...
http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10_-pageall/
...with an "_" (hard to see, since it's linked above). These are two different URLs and could be causing you some serious problems. You're basically sending 3 potentially conflicting signals to Google.
-
Thanks Takeshi!
According to GWT our sitemap is parsed every 3 days (it is indexed in 90%) and the reports are updated also on 3-4 days period basis.
The canonicals we have been introduced more than two years ago. Fact is that I was not verifying it very often but as I remember there was only a few number of duplicate meta problems. Now they are about 12,000. That's twice of the number of the pages from the sitemap, and 30% of the 35,000 pages indexed by google. 35,000 is also much more than needed, I have to analyze if there are also duplicate pages.
-
Could just mean the data in GWT isn't current or Google hasn't re-indexed all the content yet. How long ago did you put in the canonicals?
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
-
Is there any set benefit in using a URL tracking engine on a domain for passing link juice?
Is there any set benefit in using a URL tracking engine on a domain for passing link juice? I.E. xxxx.com?$id=1111 to then redirect to shareasale? The client has an affiliate program and is thinking of running one in-house as well. Is there a benefit to a “redirect engine” that uses the website root domain?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KellyBrady1 -
How Many Links to Disavow at Once When Link Profile is Very Spammy?
We are using link detox (Link Research Tools) to evaluate our domain for bad links. We ran a Domain-wide Link Detox Risk report. The reports showed a "High Domain DETOX RISK" with the following results: -42% (292) of backlinks with a high or above average detox risk
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
-8% (52) of backlinks with an average of below above average detox risk
-12% (81) of backlinks with a low or very low detox risk
-38% (264) of backlinks were reported as disavowed. This look like a pretty bad link profile. Additionally, more than 500 of the 689 backlinks are "404 Not Found", "403 Forbidden", "410 Gone", "503 Service Unavailable". Is it safe to disavow these? Could Google be penalizing us for them> I would like to disavow the bad links, however my concern is that there are so few good links that removing bad links will kill link juice and really damage our ranking and traffic. The site still ranks for terms that are not very competitive. We receive about 230 organic visits a week. Assuming we need to disavow about 292 links, would it be safer to disavow 25 per month while we are building new links so we do not radically shift the link profile all at once? Also, many of the bad links are 404 errors or page not found errors. Would it be OK to run a disavow of these all at once? Any risk to that? Would we be better just to build links and leave the bad links ups? Alternatively, would disavowing the bad links potentially help our traffic? It just seems risky because the overwhelming majority of links are bad.0 -
Google ignoring Canonical and choosing its own
Hey Mozzers, We have several products that all have upto 6 different versions, they are the same product but in a different specification. As users search via these specifications (within our website) it is beneficial to keep all 6 products as different listings on the website. In google however it is not. So we kept all 6 listing but chose 1 to be the google landing page, the only different between them all is the technical specification + occasionally size. But 95% of the pages are the same. Let call the products A, B, C, D, E, F, we made all the canonicals point to C because this is out best selling version of the product. However, google has chosen E to rank instead. What is my best move here? Should i accept the page google has chosen and change the canonicals the point to that version or should I be stubborn and try to get google to change which version it ranks. As always many thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ATP0 -
301 Externally Linked, But Non-Producing Pages, To Productive Pages Needing Links?
I'm working on a site that has some non-productive pages without much of an upside potential, but that are linked-to externally. The site also has some productive pages, light in external links, in a somewhat related topic. What do you think of 301ing the non-productive pages with links to the productive pages without links in order to give them more external link love? Would it make much of a difference? Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Do you lose link juice when stripping query strings with canonicals?
It is well known that when page A canonicals to page B, some link juice is lost (similar to a 301). So imagine I have the following pages: Page A: www.mysite.com/main-page which has the tag: <link rel="canonical" href="http: www.mysite.com="" main-page"=""></link rel="canonical" href="http:> Page B: www.mysite.com/main-page/sub-page which is a variation of Page A, so it has a tag I know that links to page B will lose some of their SEO value, as if I was 301ing from page B to page A. Question: What about this link: www.mysite.com/main-page?utm_medium=moz&utm_source=qa&utm_campaign=forum Will it also lose link juice since the query string is being stripped by the canonical tag? In terms of SEO, is this like a redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | YairSpolter0 -
Google showing me a 404 link from an external source?
In my list of 404 errors from Google webmaster I have one with the "linked from" section showing an external link. This seems like a broken link (which obviously I will try and fix to get the link juice) but why would Google recognize it as a 404? From Google: | URL: | www.broken URL | | | Error details | In Sitemaps | Linked from | | <colgroup><col></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theLotter
| http://externalwebsite.com |
| | |0 -
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 -
Fading Text Links Look Like Spammy Hidden Links to a g-bot?
Ah, Hello Mozzers, it's been a while since I was here. Wanted to run something by you... I'm looking to incorporate some fading text using Javascript onto a site homepage using the method described here; http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades/ so, my question is; does anyone think that Google might see this text as a possible dark hat SEO anchor text manipulation (similar to hidden links)? The text will contain various links (4 or 5) that will cycle through one another, fading in and out, but to a bot the text may appear initially invisible, like so; style="display: none;"><a href="">Link Here</a> All links will be internal. My gut instinct is that I'm just being stupid here, but I wanted to stay on the side of caution with this one! Thanks for your time 🙂 http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0