Will rel canonical tags remove previously indexed URLs?
-
Hello,
7 days ago, we implemented canonical tags to resolve duplicate content issues that had been caused by URL parameters. These "duplicate content" had already been indexed.
Now that the URLs have rel canonical tags in place, will Google automatically remove from its index the other URLs with the URL parameters?
I ask because we have been tracking the approximate number of URLs indexed by doing a site: search in Google, and we have barely noticed a decrease in URLs indexed.
Thanks.
-
Thanks.
I think I will monitor for the next 2-3 weeks, and if there still is a lot of unwanted URLS with parameters in the index, I will start requesting removals.
-
You have two options here:
Let Google sort it out (which they will -- but it may take time)
Remove the unnecessary URLs yourself via Webmaster Tool's URL removal tool.
-
Hi Andrea,
yep - we did that.
7 days ago, we implemented the canonical tags because URLs such aswww.example.com/widget?color=blue
www.example.com/widget?size=largewere being indexed, along with the 'real' URL
We resubmitted the sitemap (which has all the 'real' URLs) as well.
At this time, many URLs with parameters are still indexed. I guess after reading this article:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/catastrophic-canonicalization
I was expecting the change to happen a little quicker...
I just want to confirm no other action is needed on our part.
I understand canonical tags would tell the crawlers which page to index when it finds them for the first time, but I also wanted to confirm that if all URLs are already indexed (because, at the time, no canonical tags were present) implementing the tags would be enough to have the unwanted URLs removed automatically from the index. -
A week isn't very long. It can take Google months to recrawl and drop URLs from an index. Google will figure it out, you just need to give it time. If you haven't done so, update your sitemap to include the tagged pages and resubmit via Google. That will signal them to recrawl your site and could speed up the process.
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
-
Adding Schema and No index tags via GTM
If we were to deploy schema and noindex tags to our website via Google tag manager, would these tags be viewed and respected by other search engines?
Technical SEO | | GregLB0 -
Stuck with canonical URL - main site vs categorys?
Hello, I started to doubt myself. We have a classified advertisements website. On the main www.website.com page, almost all the advertisements are shown. Now we take those advertisements and also split them into categorys Category 1 / category 2 / category 3 / category 4 Now all those categories almost always have the same content as www.website.com except a bit less (because X amount of content is now divided also to 4-5 groups) For raking should i actually tell google that those categories are a copy of www.website.com or they should still be as they are?
Technical SEO | | advertisingcloud0 -
Canonical Tags - Do they only apply to internal duplicate content?
Hi Moz, I've had a complaint from a company who we use a feed from to populate a restaurants product list.They are upset that on our products pages we have canonical tags linking back to ourselves. These are in place as we have international versions of the site. They believe because they are the original source of content we need to canonical back to them. Can I please confirm that canonical tags are purely an internal duplicate content strategy. Canonical isn't telling google that from all the content on the web that this is the original source. It's just saying that from the content on our domains, this is the original one that should be ranked. Is that correct? Furthermore, if we implemented a canonical tag linking to Best Restaurants it would de-index all of our restaurants listings and pages and pass the authority of these pages to their site. Is this correct? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | benj20341 -
Will removing the trailing slash impact my SEO?
Hi there, We have a company website based on Wordpress. I just noticed that under Settings > Permalinks I can configure the look of the URLs and even remove the trailing slash. We have about 2-300 pages online. If I remove the trailing slash now, will that negatively impact our SEO in anyway for existing pages? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Amr-Haffar0 -
What is the best way to use canonical tag
Hi, i have been researching this since yesterday and have looked at this subject many times before but still cannot get my head around it. i done a report on my site which was very useful, i used http://www.juxseo.com for my site www.in2town.co.uk and it brought me some useful information but part of that info was it was telling me that i should have on my home page a canonical tag which would improve my seo. Now i am using sh404sef for my friendly urls and i am using joomla 3.0 and when i approached the makers of the sh404sef to ask about the tag they said i would need to be careful of using it as it could damage my site and my rankings. i have read lots of information but still do not have a clear understanding behind it. can anyone please explain the best way to use this and should i be using where i may have some sort of duplicate page, any help to understand this would be great.
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Rel=canonical overkill on duplicate content?
Our site has many different health centers - many of which contain duplicate content since there is topic crossover between health centers. I am using rel canonical to deal with this. My question is this: Is there a tipping point for duplicate content where Google might begin to penalize a site even if it has the rel canonical tags in place on cloned content? As an extreme example, a site could have 10 pieces of original content, but could then clone and organize this content in 5 different directories across the site each with a new url. This would ultimately result in the site having more "cloned" content than original content. Is this at all problematic even if the rel canonical is in place on all cloned content? Thanks in advance for any replies. Eric
Technical SEO | | Eric_Lifescript0 -
Canonical Tag on Blog - Roger says it's incorrect?
Hi I have just released a post on my blog and I wanted to check my primary keyword for the post to make sure the page scores well. However when I did the page report it showed the Canonical Rel tag was incorrect. example of link the blog is http://www.example.com/Blog/post-comment/ The Canonical tag is below What am I doing wrong, as it looks correct to me?
Technical SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0 -
Rel Canonical for Miva Merchant
Due to necessary pagination on the site that sells thousands of products, and due to products being assigned to more than one category in the Miva Merchant store, we have been battling duplicate content, and Meta tag issues. I asked lot of questions on the Miva forum on how to use rel canonical in Miva, and got this script below to use. It was supposed to solve all of our problems, but now it seems that every page of the site is under Rel Canonical Notices in the Crawl Diagnostics. I am not sure I am reading the Notices correctly, and if we achieved what we want or not. Here is an example of one listing: URL: http://www.domain.com/ABUS.html
Technical SEO | | 2CDevGroup
Tag Value: http://www.domain.com/
Page Authority: 28
Linking Root Domains: 1 | | | | |0