Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Are pages with a canonical tag indexed?
-
Hello here,
here are my questions for you related to the canonical tag:
1. If I put online a new webpage with a canonical tag pointing to a different page, will this new page be indexed by Google and will I be able to find it in the index?
2. If instead I apply the canonical tag to a page already in the index, will this page be removed from the index?
Thank you in advance for any insights!
Fabrizio
-
Yes, I will look into doing that on GWT.
Was a nice and useful chat indeed! Thank you again.
-
Sorry Fabrizio I got mad with my old answer
that canonical doesn't make sense with a noindex, with noindex follow.you're completely fine.
Summing up I think that you have many parameters so you should try to write them down and define the role of each one.
Then add them in GWT and choose there which are the ones which doesn't add any value and which you want to "block" (instead of putting a noindex).
The valuable ones (the one which adds value and changes content) should contain the self canonical and paginated next/prev. If you can get rid of unesful parameters it could be better so to have cleaner and shorter urls.
Just be sure that you're mainly using the most important parameters so you're consistent with your strategy.
Hope this will clear your doubts, it was a nice chat!
-
Yes, actually I could get rid of the lpg parameter (it wasn't really needed!), so now the tag definitions are (for the 3rd page of the Guitar index):
<LINK rel="<a class="attribute-value">next</a>" href="[http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=4](view-source:http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=4)"> <LINK rel="<a class="attribute-value">prev</a>" href="[http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=2](view-source:http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=2)"> <LINK rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3](view-source:http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3)">
Now, the only doubt I still have is to add or not add the noindex tag to the page when it is requested to be displayed in a different way (such as the "table view" or a different item display order). In my opinion, if I stick with the canonical tag I don't need a noindex directive. What do you think?
-
Yeah, to be fair, I'm not clear on what all of the additional parameters (like "lpg=") do, so this can get tricky fast. Basically, look at it this way:
If the URL is:
example.com/page=3?param=xThen the tags should point to:
Rel=prev:
example.com/page=2?param=xRel=next:
example.com/page=4?param=xRel=canonical:
example.com/page=3 (no parameters)Some parameters may not be indexed and/or functional, though, so individual cases can vary. You may choose to ignore some parameters in Google Webmaster Tools, for example. It gets tricky as the parameter list grows.
-
Mememax, after thinking I have some doubts though about what you have suggested.
Why I want to put a noindex tag to the page displaying the list in "table view" if I already have a canonical tag pointing to the "regular view" page? Wouldn't the canonical tag be enough for the purpose of telling that the "real" canonical page is the "regular view" version? I am asking this because if I want to apply a noindex tag to that kind of different view, I may want to do the same to the list displayed with a different order, and for any other different way of displaying the list, etc... hence just using the canonical tag would be appropriate, pointing always to the "regular list" view, no matter what kind of "filtering" or "different view' option is selected. What do you think?
In other words, I don't think I need to include a noindex tag for any different kind of view the user requests as long as I provide a canonical tag pointing to the regular view list.
Am I correct?
-
Yes, thank you Mememax, I agree with you 100%. That makes perfect sense and I will work on that tomorrow morning. I am eager to know Dr. Peter thoughts and confirmation.
On my side, I think I got it cleared-up now. Thank you very much again!
-
Thank you ! That makes sense now.
-
Hey Fabrizio, I think that what Google states in their guidelines is that you have two choices:
- if you have a view all page, you should noindex and follow all your other pages so google will deliver only that page
- if you don't have a view all page or if you prefer to show paginated series (i.e. to make pages lighter and quicker to deliver to users) you may consider to use rel next/prev.
In this second case it may happen that you also add filters or session ids in the urls of those pages, in that case you should consider adding a self referentail canonical tag to avoid duplicates. But this is only if you cover this case, if you're looking to canonicalize correctly your paginated series you may not use the self canonical tag, because if not properly implemented this may get you a bit of extra work.
In this page for example
I found this:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3&lpg=0">
Which I don't think is what you want to do.
Also if you set the page to view as a table: your url changes to http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3&viewlistflag=1
and while the canonical should remain the same (well done but I think you should get rid of the lpg parameter in the canonical), the rel next prev should change accordingly IMO.
So instead of being:
prev: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=2&lpg=20
next: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=4&lpg=60you should offer the next and prev page of the filtered url:
next: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=4&lpg=60&viewlistflag=1
prev: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=2&lpg=20&viewlistflag=1Or in this case (since the content is almost the same you may consider the list page as the canonical of the table one putting there a noindex.
Summing up, IMO: in this page http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3
you'll have:
prev: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=4&lpg=60
next: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=2&lpg=20
(optional) a self canonical to http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3In this page (and in other filtered pages if you have apply the same idea):
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3&viewlistflag=1You'll have:
noindex,follow and canonical to the list page:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3maybe dr peter can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this should be more consistent like this. Sorry for the huge answer
-
Wow, yes - sorry about that. I've updated it. Google original write-up actually covers this case, too (it's toward the end):
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
-
Please, have a look at the page below, I have modified the canonical tag as suggested:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3&lpg=40
Is that correct?
Thank you again very much.
-
Thank you Peter, I guess you meant to have the "canonical" tag as last tag in your example above, and also the previous rel=next and rel=prev definitions should be inverted:
Am I correct? That makes sense. If so, I will update my site to reflect this.
Thank you for the link!
-
This gets tricky fast. Google currently wants rel=prev/next to contain the parameters currently in use (like sorts) for the page you're on and then wants you rel-canonical to the non-parameterized version. So, if the URL is:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=3&lpg=40
...then the tags should be...
Yeah, it's a bit strange. They have suggested that it's ok to rel-canonical to a "View All" page, but with the kind of product volume you have, that's generally a bad idea (for users and search). The have specifically recommended against setting rel-canonical to Page 1 of search results, especially if you use rel=prev/next.
Rel=prev/next will still show pages in the index, but I've found it to work pretty well. The other option is the more classic approach to simple META NOINDEX, FOLLOW pages 2+. That can still be effective, but it's getting less common.
Adam Audette has generally strong posts about this topic - here's a good, recent one:
http://searchengineland.com/the-latest-greatest-on-seo-pagination-114284
-
Thank you for your post, and I think you have just opened a doubt I had, and that's exactly what also concerned me.
Have a look at this typical category page of ours:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html
For that category pagination, I have implemented the rel=prev/next as suggested by Google, but being afraid to be penalized for duplicate content, I also put a canonical tag pointing at the first page of that index. Should I have put the canonical tag pointing to the page series itself?
Something like:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html?cp=2
for the second page instead of the general:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html
as I am currently doing?
Thanks!
-
I have to disagree on this one. If Google honors a canonical tag, the non-canonical page will generally disappear from the index, at least inasmuch as we can measure it (with "site:", getting it to rank, etc.). It's a strong signal in many cases.
This is part of the reason Google introduced rel=prev/next for paginated content. With canonical, pages in the series aren't usually able to rank. Rel=prev/next allows them to rank without clogging up the index (theoretically). For search pagination, it's generally a better solution.
If your paginated content is still showing in large quantities in the index, Google may not be honoring the canonical tag properly, and they could be causing duplicate content issues. It depends on the implementation, but they recommend these days that you don't canonical to the first page of search results. Google may choose to ignore the tag in some cases.
-
Thank you very much, that makes perfect sense. In my case, I am talking exactly about paginated content, and that's probably why all pages are in the index despite they are canonicalized to point to the main page. So, I guess that even if you have thousands of paginated pages indexed (mine is a pretty big e-commerce website), that's not going to be an issue. Am I right?
-
Normally the only thing which will prevent a page from ranking is noindex tag. If you don't want to have it indexed just noindex it, if that page has been laready indexed, put the noindex tag and delete from index using GWT option.
Concerning the canonical tag thing, it will consolidate the seo value in one page but it won't prevent those page to appear in rankings, however you may have two cases:
- the two or more pages are identical. In that case google may accept the canonicalization and show always the original page.
- the two or more pages are slightly different, it's the case of paginated pages which are canonicalized using rel next/prev. In that sense the whole value will be consolidated in page 1 but then the page which will be shown in the rankings will be the one which responds to that query, for example if someone is looking for blue glass, google will return the page which shows blue glass listing if that's different from the first one.
Hope this may help you!
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
-
No Index thousands of thin content pages?
Hello all! I'm working on a site that features a service marketed to community leaders that allows the citizens of that community log 311 type issues such as potholes, broken streetlights, etc. The "marketing" front of the site is 10-12 pages of content to be optimized for the community leader searchers however, as you can imagine there are thousands and thousands of pages of one or two line complaints such as, "There is a pothole on Main St. and 3rd." These complaint pages are not about the service, and I'm thinking not helpful to my end goal of gaining awareness of the service through search for the community leaders. Community leaders are searching for "311 request service", not "potholes on main street". Should all of these "complaint" pages be NOINDEX'd? What if there are a number of quality links pointing to the complaint pages? Do I have to worry about losing Domain Authority if I do NOINDEX them? Thanks for any input. Ken
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KenSchaefer0 -
Landing pages for paid traffic and the use of noindex vs canonical
A client of mine has a lot of differentiated landing pages with only a few changes on each, but with the same intent and goal as the generic version. The generic version of the landing page is included in navigation, sitemap and is indexed on Google. The purpose of the differentiated landing pages is to include the city and some minor changes in the text/imagery to best fit the Adwords text. Other than that, the intent and purpose of the pages are the same as the main / generic page. They are not to be indexed, nor am I trying to have hidden pages linking to the generic and indexed one (I'm not going the blackhat way). So – I want to avoid that the duplicate landing pages are being indexed (obviously), but I'm not sure if I should use noindex (nofollow as well?) or rel=canonical, since these landing pages are localized campaign versions of the generic page with more or less only paid traffic to them. I don't want to be accidentally penalized, but I still need the generic / main page to rank as high as possible... What would be your recommendation on this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ostesmorbrod0 -
E-Commerce Site Collection Pages Not Being Indexed
Hello Everyone, So this is not really my strong suit but I’m going to do my best to explain the full scope of the issue and really hope someone has any insight. We have an e-commerce client (can't really share the domain) that uses Shopify; they have a large number of products categorized by Collections. The issue is when we do a site:search of our Collection Pages (site:Domain.com/Collections/) they don’t seem to be indexed. Also, not sure if it’s relevant but we also recently did an over-hall of our design. Because we haven’t been able to identify the issue here’s everything we know/have done so far: Moz Crawl Check and the Collection Pages came up. Checked Organic Landing Page Analytics (source/medium: Google) and the pages are getting traffic. Submitted the pages to Google Search Console. The URLs are listed on the sitemap.xml but when we tried to submit the Collections sitemap.xml to Google Search Console 99 were submitted but nothing came back as being indexed (like our other pages and products). We tested the URL in GSC’s robots.txt tester and it came up as being “allowed” but just in case below is the language used in our robots:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ben-R
User-agent: *
Disallow: /admin
Disallow: /cart
Disallow: /orders
Disallow: /checkout
Disallow: /9545580/checkouts
Disallow: /carts
Disallow: /account
Disallow: /collections/+
Disallow: /collections/%2B
Disallow: /collections/%2b
Disallow: /blogs/+
Disallow: /blogs/%2B
Disallow: /blogs/%2b
Disallow: /design_theme_id
Disallow: /preview_theme_id
Disallow: /preview_script_id
Disallow: /apple-app-site-association
Sitemap: https://domain.com/sitemap.xml A Google Cache:Search currently shows a collections/all page we have up that lists all of our products. Please let us know if there’s any other details we could provide that might help. Any insight or suggestions would be very much appreciated. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts! Thank you in advance. Best,0 -
How to check if the page is indexable for SEs?
Hi, I'm building the extension for Chrome, which should show me the status of the indexability of the page I'm on. So, I need to know all the methods to check if the page has the potential to be crawled and indexed by a Search Engines. I've come up with a few methods: Check the URL in robots.txt file (if it's not disallowed) Check page metas (if there are not noindex meta) Check if page is the same for unregistered users (for those pages only available for registered users of the site) Are there any more methods to check if a particular page is indexable (or not closed for indexation) by Search Engines? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | boostaman0 -
Do internal links from non-indexed pages matter?
Hi everybody! Here's my question. After a site migration, a client has seen a big drop in rankings. We're trying to narrow down the issue. It seems that they have lost around 15,000 links following the switch, but these came from pages that were blocked in the robots.txt file. I was wondering if there was any research that has been done on the impact of internal links from no-indexed pages. Would be great to hear your thoughts! Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO0 -
Date of page first indexed or age of a page?
Hi does anyone know any ways, tools to find when a page was first indexed/cached by Google? I remember a while back, around 2009 i had a firefox plugin which could check this, and gave you a exact date. Maybe this has changed since. I don't remember the plugin. Or any recommendations on finding the age of a page (not domain) for a website? This is for competitor research not my own website. Cheers, Paul
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MBASydney0 -
Our login pages are being indexed by Google - How do you remove them?
Each of our login pages show up under different subdomains of our website. Currently these are accessible by Google which is a huge competitive advantage for our competitors looking for our client list. We've done a few things to try to rectify the problem: - No index/archive to each login page Robot.txt to all subdomains to block search engines gone into webmaster tools and added the subdomain of one of our bigger clients then requested to remove it from Google (This would be great to do for every subdomain but we have a LOT of clients and it would require tons of backend work to make this happen.) Other than the last option, is there something we can do that will remove subdomains from being viewed from search engines? We know the robots.txt are working since the message on search results say: "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more." But we'd like the whole link to disappear.. Any suggestions?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | desmond.liang1 -
Number of Indexed Pages are Continuously Going Down
I am working on online retail stores. Initially, Google have indexed 10K+ pages of my website. I have checked number of indexed page before one week and pages were 8K+. Today, number of indexed pages are 7680. I can't understand why should it happen and How can fix it? I want to index maximum pages of my website.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommercePundit0