URL for offline purposes
-
Hi there,
We are going to be promoting one of our products offline, however I do not want to use the original URL for this product page as it's long for the user to type in, so I thought it would be best practice in using a URL that would be short, easier for the consumer to remember.
My plan:
Replicate the product page and put it on this new short URL, however this would mean I have a duplicate content issue, would It be best practice to use a canonical on the new short URL pointing to the original URL? or use a 301?
Thanks for any help
-
I agree with Matt - as long as your primary, internal links are consistent, it's ok to use a short version for offline purposes. The canonical tag is perfectly appropriate for this.
The other option would be to use a third-party shortener that has built-in tracking, like Bit.ly. It uses a 301-redirect, but also captures the data. If you're just doing a test case, this might be easier all-around.
-
Well I am assuming all your sites internal links are already pointing to the original product page, so in relation to this, as long as you don't create any internal links pointing to your duplicate friendly URL for offline you will be fine and implementing it as DR Pete instructs. Canonical links should be on all pages that are duplicates of the target page which is part of the canonical tag.
-
I read this in Dr.Pete's article in seomoz
Know Your Crawl Paths
Finally, an important reminder – the most important canonical signal is usually your internal links. If you use the canonical tag to point to one version of a URL, but then every internal link uses a different version, you’re sending a mixed signal and using the tag as a band-aid. The canonical URL should actually becanonical in practice – use it consistently. If you’re an outside SEO coming into a new site, make sure you understand the crawl paths first, before you go and add a bunch of tags. Don’t create a mess on top of a mess.
Would this cause me an issue using the method I have used?
Also should I use a canonical on the original URL pointing to itself?
Thanks
-
I don't think you need to remove this Gary if that is the case - take a look here for an updated 2012 article on rel="canonical" from the horses mouth
- http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
This might help you.
-
H,
IMO you can simply disallow the URL with robots.txt. There is no other alternative for this.
Regards,
-
Hi Matt,
I really do not want to create a 301, as I want to see stats in Analytics for this short URL.
I have actually used a canonical, do you recommend removing this and using disallow in robots.txt?
Thanks.
-
I would create a 301 redirect from your new short URL to your original product page as you are essentially just creating a new path to it and not new content.
Here is a post about canonicalisation from Matt Cutts - http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-advice-url-canonicalization/
And another useful insight from SEOMoz on how to deal with duplicate content - http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content
Hope this helps
Blurbpoint is also correct using his method will also work - blocking the page in a robots.txt file or using the meta-tags no index, no follow will also stop duplicate content issues! The down side is that any links that your short URL acquires will not pass any link juice unlike with 301s or canonicalization.
-
By using canonical tag we can tell Google, which is the original version of page. Dr pete has written nice post on it few days back.
Here is the URL: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/which-page-is-canonical
Hope this will solve your concern.
-
Hi there,
I have just read this post:
What is the purpose of the canonical tag in this instance if you can you block that URL in robots.txt?
Thanks
-
If you are thinking of promoting that product offline, you can block that page in your robots.txt file or alternatively you can also put noindex, nofollow robot tag in that page. Search engine will not going to index that page as its blocked for all bots so no duplicate content issue will arise.
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 Displaying Wrong Homepage URL
Hi Everyone, Google is displaying www.domain.com instead of domain.com. We have our preferred URL set up as domain.com, and even redirect www.domain.com to domain.com, but in the search results it is showing www.domain.com. Problem is we are seeing referral data from www.domain.com and in Google it says "No information is available for this page." Anyone seen a way to resolve this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vetofunk0 -
Help with facet URLs in Magento
Hi Guys, Wondering if I can get some technical help here... We have our site britishbraces.co.uk , built in Magento. As per eCommerce sites, we have paginated pages throughout. These have rel=next/prev implemented but not correctly ( as it is not in is it in ) - this fix is in process. Our canonicals are currently incorrect as far as I believe, as even when content is filtered, the canonical takes you back to the first page URL. For example, http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/x-style.html?ajaxcatalog=true&brand=380&max=51.19&min=31.19 Canonical to... http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/x-style.html Which I understand to be incorrect. As I want the coloured filtered pages to be indexed ( due to search volume for colour related queries ), but I don't want the price filtered pages to be indexed - I am unsure how to implement the solution? As I understand, because rel=next/prev implemented ( with no View All page ), the rel=canonical is not necessary as Google understands page 1 is the first page in the series. Therefore, once a user has filtered by colour, there should then be a canonical pointing to the coloured filter URL? ( e.g. /product/black ) But when a user filters by price, there should be noindex on those URLs ? Or can this be blocked in robots.txt prior? My head is a little confused here and I know we have an issue because our amount of indexed pages is increasing day by day but to no solution of the facet urls. Can anybody help - apologies in advance if I have confused the matter. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HappyJackJr0 -
Multi URL treated as one?
I had previous asked this question, where the issue turned out to be that I didn't have all the URLs in Google Search console. Whoops! So I have added 4 properties that are really all the same property: https:// https://www http:// http://www I have added all of these. This has raised a few more questions: Can I get Google Search Console to treat these (and even group these together) to show as one property? Right now they are all listed separately. I know in Site Settings you can set a Preferred Site. Even so, they show as separate sites with data separately. Can I merge these? What about Moz? Should I do something similar to see traffic for each of these in Moz? It looks like we are missing a ton of info. Does Moz get this from GSC automatically? What about sitemaps? Can I fix this in sitemaps? Do I need separate sitemaps for each property?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TapGoods0 -
Does a non-canonical URL pass link juice?
Our site received a great link from URL A, which was syndicated to URL B. But URL B is canonicalized to URL A. Does the link on URL B pass juice to my site? (See image below for a visual representation of my question) zgbzqBy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Choice1 -
URL Injection Hack - What to do with spammy URLs that keep appearing in Google's index?
A website was hacked (URL injection) but the malicious code has been cleaned up and removed from all pages. However, whenever we run a site:domain.com in Google, we keep finding more spammy URLs from the hack. They all lead to a 404 error page since the hack was cleaned up in the code. We have been using the Google WMT Remove URLs tool to have these spammy URLs removed from Google's index but new URLs keep appearing every day. We looked at the cache dates on these URLs and they are vary in dates but none are recent and most are from a month ago when the initial hack occurred. My question is...should we continue to check the index every day and keep submitting these URLs to be removed manually? Or since they all lead to a 404 page will Google eventually remove these spammy URLs from the index automatically? Thanks in advance Moz community for your feedback.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | peteboyd0 -
Long URL and Overly Dynamic
I'm having a lot of these "Warnings" show up. I use an Ecommerce site that automatically makes my URL. Is this something I should be concerned about?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | floridaoutdoorsrv0 -
Will our PA be retained after URL updates?
Our web hosting company recently applied a seo update to our site to deal with canonicalization issues and also rewrote all urls to lower case. As a result our PA is now 1 on all pages its effected. I took this up with them and they had this to say. "I must confess I’m still a bit lost however can assure you our consolidation tech uses a 301 permanent redirect for transfers. This should ensure any back link equity isn’t lost. For instance this address: http://www.towelsrus.co.uk/towels-bath-sheets/aztex/egyptian-cotton-Bath-sheet_ct474bd182pd2731.htm Redirects to this page: http://www.towelsrus.co.uk/towels-bath-sheets/aztex/egyptian-cotton-bath-sheet_ct474bd182pd2731.htm And the redirect returns 301 header response – as discussed in your attached forum thread extract" Firstly, is canonicalization working as the number of duplicate pages shot up last week and also will we get our PA back? Thanks Craig
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Towelsrus0 -
2 Language Versions on Same URL
A site we are working on is a large gift retailer in Canada. They have a language option for French, but the page URLs are the same. If you click 'French' in the header, a cookie is set and then all pages are dynamically served the French content (and all nav/site elements of course change to French). The URLs then are exactly the same as it's the cookie that determines the language option to serve. e.g. www.site.ca/index.php?category=7&product=99.... would be the same regardless of if I'm set for English or French. Question: Does this setup have a negative impact on any SEO factors? The site has several thousand pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BMGSEO0