Sitelinks (breadcrumbs) in SERPs
-
Hi there,
I have a .co.uk & .ie website both have the exact same content, only differences is the UK website is selling the product in pounds and the Irish website is selling in Euros plus both websites have different contact numbers.
I decided to use rel canonical on the .ie pointing to the .co.uk website as I think it was having an issue in my SERPs for the .co.uk website in Google.co.uk, anyway since doing this, I am seeing strange things happening in SERPs for my keywords, for example if you click the link below, my website is number 2 for 'hot flushes' if you hover over or click on 'health or 'menopause' in the breadcrumbs in SERPs it takes you to the .co.uk website, is this normal?
-
There's no ideal solution here, but I think you may have to try it, just to focus the ranking power and try to sort out what's going on.
-
Hi Peter,
I have removed the canonical tag from the .ie website.
Do you think I should use a 301 and then let's see what happens?
-
The 301 should override the canonical and hreflang, but if it were me I'd at least remove the canonical - I'm not a fan of mixed signals.
-
Hi Peter,
The canonical has been on the .ie website since mid July which I think is enough time, it could be that the fall in my SERPs for the .co.uk website is nothing to do with the .ie website.
Yes, I am not going to go ahead with the noindex, I just do not think it's a worthwhile exercise, however the 301 could be useful for testing purposes to see if it has a positive impact on the .co.uk SERPs.
If I use the 301, would you remove the canonical and hreflang tags?
-
The NOINDEX will take some time to remove and will kill your link equity (for now) - that's my main hesitation. I get why you don't want to 301, for user reasons. The canonical will still carry link-juice over. Personally, I think I'd give the canonical time - your current situation isn't ideal, but the NOINDEX could waste your inbound links and, now that you've canonical'ed, even harm the .co.uk site slightly. Better to give your .ie site visitors a path to the .co.uk site/prices and live with some minor Google hiccups, IMO.
The other simple reality is that, if Google isn't honoring the canonicals, they may ignore the NOINDEX tags or take a very long time to process them. The most definitive solution would be removal in Google Webmaster Tools, but that's pretty extreme.
-
Hi Peter,
Thanks again for your reply.
Yes, mixed signals indeed, it's causing me some headache. What information I have gathered over the last 6 months or so, is exactly what you have experienced technicians at Google all have different suggestions, what is clear is not one person really knows what is best practice.
I do not really want to do a 301 redirect as the Irish website really does have it's purpose, not just for SEO, but we do a lot of offline marketing in Ireland directing consumers to this website.
I have included a noindex on the .ie domain just for now to see if it does indeed have an impact on the .co.uk SERPs, I know it's far from ideal but this way I will be sure if the .ie is having a negative impact on .co.uk SERPs
I'm confident that once I remove the noindex from the .ie website if things do not work out, the Irish site will recover. Would you be totally against this method? I have got to mention the UK site is our main focus from an SEO point of view.
-
Yeah, it seems like Google is overriding the canonical, just based on the Google.ie connection, but it's really hard to tell. I'm actually conversing with some other SEOs about this same problem and Google's mixed signals on hreflang vs. canonical (or both together), and the answers aren't very clear. Different Google reps have given slightly different suggestions, and none of them are working consistently in all cases.
If you're going to drop the .ie website temporarily, I'd probably 301-redirect it. It's a little difficult to reverse, but at least you'll consolidate all of your link-juice and ranking factors for that site into the .co.uk site. If you just deindex the Irish domain, you'll lose what SEO value you've built to it.
-
Hi Peter,
In Google.ie the keyphrase 'hot flushes' if I looked at the cached version of this page, it shows the .co.uk website, is this a signal that Google is recognizing the canonical?
Ever since the .ie website went live I have had problems with my SERPs for the .co.uk website in Google.co.uk, however identifying that the .ie website is this issue is not so straight forward, even using the hreflang and rel canonical has proven unsuccessful in bringing back the SERPs for the .co.uk website, however I am just not sure Google has recognized these signals.
Would you advice in using a noindex on the .ie website just for temporary measures?, this way I can be sure one way or the other that .ie website has had a negative impact on my SERPs for the .co.uk website.
-
The only evidence is anecdotal. Google is recognizing the canonical in the breadcrumbs, but is ignoring it for the main site. My gut feeling is that they've decided the .ie website is the better match for Google.ie, and so they're ignoring the canonical in that case. There's no way to prove that other than inferring their intent from what we see in the results.
So, here's the question - if you're going the canonical route, you have to start asking if it's worth having two sites at all. If you're not going to let both sites rank, then they have limited utility. At that point, you might just want to 301-redirect to one, unified site, and focusing the link profiles and your SEO efforts.
Obviously, that's a big decision, and you could lose ground in the Irish market (on Google.ie), but by using the canonical, you've already started moving that direction. The hreflang tags are more subtle, which is why I recommended them initially. If your canonical implementation succeeds, you're basically suggesting Google only recognize one site in search results.
Cross-TLD/country, it is possible Google will continue to rank the Irish site on Google.ie even with the canonicals, but now you're leaving it open to their discretion. If you're comfortable with that, no problem. If you really want to consolidate, though, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to completely unify the sites and just make price a user option that Google doesn't see.
Unfortunately, this is a complex problem, and once Google starts mismatching the sites to TLDs, there's not an easy answer. I've seen many international SEOs who I respect struggle with this.
-
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply, very much appreciated.
You mention 'but it does seem like Google is selectively applying your canonical tag' would it be possible to show me evidence of this please?
Yes, we did discuss this before with the hreflang tag, however I never saw anything come from it. What I was testing is when I was copying a paragraph of text from the website and pasting it into Google.co.uk it was the .ie website that was appearing, however for no keywords was the .ie website outranking the .co.uk domain in Google.co.uk
'm not sure if I should give this any notice that when I copy a paragraph of text from the website into Google.co.uk that the .ie website appears, would you?
Since I placed the canonical tag on the .ie website, when I do the above 'copying and pasting a paragraph into Google.co.uk, it's now the .co.uk website that appears.
Another interesting point:
I am ranking no.2 in Google.ie and no.16 in Google.co.uk for the key term 'hot flushes' when I copy and paste the first paragraph of this page into Google.co.uk my website appears on page 2, even though the content in unique, when I do the same in Google.ie it's the .ie website that appears no.1 which is expected.
As I said I'm not sure if this is a signal that something is just not quite right with the website?
-
Just to clarify - you can use rel-canonical cross-domain, but it's use is a bit more restrictive and Google may ignore the tag in some cases. I haven't seen this particular issue before, but it does seem like Google is selectively applying your canonical tag.
Did the "hreflang" tags not help? I see you have them in place (I think we may have even discussed this on another question. That would be the more appropriate choice here, but again, Google's application isn't always consistent.
They deprecated the syndication-source tag, so short of 301-redirecting, the canonical tag is about your only other tool. Personally, I'd probably let Google stick with just the hreflang tags for a bit and drop the canonical, giving it a few weeks to see what happens, but it does depend on your goal. Google can be really stubborn about same-language content in nearby countries. We see it a lot with England/Ireland and Holland/Belgium.
-
Hi Sanket,
No where does it mention use can't use rel canonical for cross domain?
Can you give your reasons why you should not display this?
-
Dr Pete has written nice post on it :
Hope this help you out:
-
Hi Sanket,
Why can't I use it cross domain?, I am trying to tell Google that the original source of this content is the .co.uk website
-
Hi Gary,
One Suggestion: Canonical tag can't be used cross domain. I have checked "hot flushes" landing page and find canonical tag for co.uk site. Canonical tag can be used within the domain.
-
Hi Sanket,
Yes, if you click on the title, however just below the title where you have this:
health > menopause
If you click on one of the above it takes you to the .co.uk site.
Hope the above makes sense.
-
Hi,
I have open your site in my chrome and Firefox both browsers both shows same result, it open with this http://www.avogel.ie/health/menopause/hot-flushes/ if i searched your site 'hot flushes' so don't worry about that.
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
-
How to Avoid Improper Special Characters from Being Pulled into SERPs
If you Google "Progressive careers," for the Progressive.com result you'll see a result where Google pulls in content from the page outside of the meta description (not uncommon) and also pulls in an in-page carrot that indicates a link. This character displays as a square on desktop / Android devices. The site includes this character as an accessibility best practice to indicate a link from a heading for screen readers. On iPhones, that square shows up as a soccer ball emoji even though the entity code is different than our character's entity code (our entity code= , soccer ball entity code is ⚽). Clearly, not the best experience. I know we cannot control what piece of the page is pulled in as the meta description, but does anyone have any tips to hide or help avoid pulling in that special character?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | P-C-A0 -
If Fetch As Google can render website, it should be appear on SERP ?
Hello everyone and thank you in advance for helping me. I have a Reactjs application which has been made by Create-React-App that is zero configuration. Also I connect it using Axios to the API using Codeigniter(PHP). Before using Reactjs, this website was at the top Google's SERPs for specific keywords. After Using Reactjs and some changes in URLs with no redirection in htaccess or something else, I lost my search engine visibility! I guess it should be caused by Google penalties! I tried using "react-snap", "react-snapshot" and so forth for prerendering but there are so many problem with them. Also I tried using Prerender.io and unfortunately my host provider didn't help me to config the shared host! Finally I found a great article that my website eventually display in Rendering box of Fetch As Google. But still in Fetching box, the dynamic content didn't display. But I can see my entire website in both "This is how Googlebot saw the page" and "This is how a visitor to your website would have seen the page" for all pages without any problem. If Fetch As Google can render the entire of the website, is it possible to index my pages after a while and it would be appear on Google's SERP? mokaab_serp.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | hamoz10 -
Truncated sitelinks in SERP
Anyway, I've seen these pop up for certain searches (not all). I'm curious as to how these truncated sitelinks appear. When searching for a company, the full sitelinks appear with descriptions and the like, but these little ones are a little new to me (apologies, I don't know if they have an official name). Is there a way to get them to appear for our page? Or more importantly, does it matter? iZlJZ
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Parker8180 -
Internal Search Results Appear in Google SERPS
My friend is running an ecommerce store selling apparels. How can we make internal search results to appear in Google SERPS and rank them? For example: the query is "peplum dress". You type the query into the internal search box and it returns a set of results. In this case, it's product listing. How can we optimize and rank it so it appears in Google SERP? Do we do it the traditional way in terms of links? Say URL is: http://www.asos.com/search/peplum-top?q=peplum+top&r=2 And we build links to it? Some of you may ask why not create a dedicated page for this, the reason being we'd have too many categories if we were to create one for each. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WayneRooney0 -
Other domains hosted on same server showing up in SERP for 1st site's keywords
For the website in question, the first domain alphabetically on the shared hosting space, strange search results are appearing on the SERP for keywords associated with the site. Here is an example: A search for "unique company name" shows the results: www.uniquecompanyname.com as the top result. But on pages 2 and 3, we are getting results for the same content but for domains hosted on the same server. Here are some examples with the domain name replaced: UNIQUE DOMAIN NAME PAGE TITLE
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Motava
ftp.DOMAIN2.com/?action=news&id=63
META DESCRIPTION TEXT UNIQUE DOMAIN NAME PAGE TITLE 2
www.DOMAIN3.com/?action=news&id=120
META DESCRIPTION TEXT2 UNIQUE DOMAIN NAME PAGE TITLE 2
www.DOMAIN4.com/?action=news&id=120
META DESCRIPTION TEXT2 UNIQUE DOMAIN NAME PAGE TITLE 3
mail.DOMAIN5.com/?action=category&id=17
META DESCRIPTION TEXT3 ns5.DOMAIN6.com/?action=article&id=27 There are more but those are just some examples. These other domain names being listed are other customer domains on the same VPS shared server. When clicking the result the browser URL still shows the other customer domain name B but the content is usually the 404 page. The page title and meta description on that page is not displayed the same as on the SERP.As far as we can tell, this is the only domain this is occurring for.So far, no crawl errors detected in Webmaster Tools and moz crawl not completed yet.0 -
How to find all of a website's SERPs?
Was wondering how easiest to find all of a website's existing SERPs?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Why would sitelinks disappear
For over the past month my site has received sitelinks from Google and they have been really helping out. All of a sudden this morning they are gone. We 301'ed and redirected (WBT) another one of our other sites to this one on monday. Could it be Google is just trying to figure out what we are doing? Has anyone else seen sitelinks come and go on their site without any other redirects? I am assuming it is because of my sites combining but wanted to hear if anyone else saw sitelinks come and go on their own. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GeorgeLaRochelle0 -
My brand is not ranking on Android Google SERPs
In the new blog post here, she links to mobilemoxie, a site which allows you to do searches on various different smartphones. I tried a search for my brand, "ixl.com" on an iPhone 4 and a Android phone, the Motorola Droid X. On the iPhone, our brand appears in #1 like normal, but on the Android phone, our result doesn't appear on the first page. Any ideas as to why this would be the case? We're currently developing a mobile version of our site but we don't have one yet. Could that be the issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | john4math0