Silly question about noindex and canonical
-
Hi,
This is probably going to sound a bit stupid, but I nevertheless want to check.
We have a site that's going to have identical pages (really not my choice) for a sales reason. The two examples would be example.com/profile-name and example.com/location/profile-name
Users using the onsite navigation will always end up in the latter example naturally as they have to select a location before viewing content (plus having the location in the url is nice as there are multiple profiles across different locations that have the same name). However, it's easier to sell our services when we can offer just example.com/profile-name to users for their own marketing reasons.
I'd like to make the example.com/profile-name noindex follow, and have just the example.com/location/profile-name indexed, but not sure if it would be better to implement canonical tags instead? Can anyone see any potential pitfalls of using either method or does it not really make a difference (which is what I suspect, but I'd rather look stupid than get this wrong)?
Thanks!
-
Unfortunately we can't redirect from the shorter to the longer as those we are selling the profile spaces to want to be able to see example.com/profile-name on the browser
-
Thanks for the input guys! Will implement a canonical then.
-
Definitely use canonical. I use it on all my pages for the same problem.
As Gagan said: Using noindex - will make the page out of search engines index...
Hope i helped.
-
Dont make them noindex, rather use canonical tag.
Using noindex - will make the page out of search engines index.But using canonical - It not only gives a strong indication to search Engines that the canonical page is the best page and rest are duplicates, But, it also passes on existing page Authority from duplicate pages to the canonical page
Trust it help !!
-
There are two solutions, one which is canoncialisation pointing to the correct location, the other (which i prefer for this kind of thing) is to implement 301 redirects from the shorter url.
I think that is ideal because you are saying it's easier to tell people to go to that location, thats fine and great, but we want search to hit the real page - so therefore the second / landing page doesn't need to exist ... just redirect it and avoid confusion.
hope that makes sense
-
Hi Philip,
I did a lot of research on a similar issue a few months back. I am certain that Google recommends canonical tag to resolve the issue of duplicate content. That should be the way to go about it.
It's easy to implement and works just perfect.
Hope it helps. !!!
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
-
ASP Canonical and Internal Linking
Hello - I'm working with a large ASP website and trying to troubleshoot issues I believe might be related to how the canonical element is used. On page - all internal links, including navigation links, use the following format (uppercase) - website.com**/F**older/Folder/Product . So, any page navigated to will always display the uppercase version of the URL. And, all of these pages have the canonical tag pointing to the lowercase version of the URL. The pages included in Google's index are all lowercase versions of the URL like this - website.com**/f**older/folder/product . My concern is that a lot of internal authority flow is being impacted/negated because all internal links point to the uppercase versions of URLs and all those pages reference the lowercase version URL in the canonical reference. Is this a valid concern?
On-Page Optimization | | LA_Steve0 -
To NoFollow or to NoIndex internal links
I all, I have recently taken over a fairly large e-commerce site that I am trying to "fix" and have come across something that I need a second opinion on. A Semrush audit has revealed that there are a heck of a lot of internal nofollow links (over 90 000) that point to predominantly 4 pages from the Header of each page in the site, these are change currency pages to show clients different currencies and a members login page. The pages are: /?action=changecurrency¤cy=EUR /?action=changecurrency¤cy=USD /?action=changecurrency¤cy=GBP /members/ My opinion is that these pages should just be no index pages and they should be followed. instead of being indexed and no followed? Any thoughts on this out there?
On-Page Optimization | | cradut0 -
Rel="Canonical"
Hi!, We´ve just launched a new website and on this web we are using a lot Call to Actions on every page of the web and all of this CTA`s goes to the same Landing Page. (Ej: http://www.landing page.com) The problem comes when Google says this Landing Page is duplicate content because we are using some parameters like, for instance, http://www.landing page.com/?fuente=Soporteensalesforce So now we have just 1 Landing Page but Google sees 13 pages, because of this parameters and Moz alerted me that Google is seeing it as duplicate content. Yesterday I put this on the head of the only Landing Page we have so Google can see it in the proper way, as just one landing, but I don´t know if it is enough or should I do anything else? What I put on the Head: Hope someone can help me about this because I´ve tried to find a solution and this is the only thing that came up to me, and don´t know if it´s the right thing. Thanks for your time!
On-Page Optimization | | Manuel_LeadClic0 -
Rel="canonical" at the same page
Hello Everyone!! We have a Joomla Site and in the template we have a php function that create the **link rel="canonical" **and in the href inserts the same page url. For example, if the we do a search and the url have some cookies. That Url is gonna be the **rel="canonical" **for that page. Is it working correctly? We need an advice to to set it up correctly! Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | mycostaricalink0 -
Noindex tags in WordPress
I'm receiving 4 duplicate content warnings from Roger.They are all "www.mysite/tag/tag-name". I'm using WordPress and have Yoast WordPress SEO installed. Should I set the tags to "noindex" in the plugin settings?
On-Page Optimization | | brandzz0 -
Canonical tags
In previous we had issues with capital letters in page urls. So we made a 301 redirection to lower case page url. But I read there that it's not good idea to use 301 redirection, better solution for that canonical tag. So we placed canonical url tak to lower case page url... So after week, in google webmaster tools I see around 60k os dublicate pages. Why google don't see canonical tag? Thank you
On-Page Optimization | | bele0 -
Newbie with a few questions
Hi! First post here. Would be great if someone could help me out with a few questions: 1. When I search a brand-name, there are 6 pages in 2 columns listed right below the brand in the SERPS. Is it possible to choose which pages in the "category list" that Google shows? 2. From what I've understood, the keywords being included early in the content is of much higher importance than using them in a perfectly structured tag hierarchy. Instead of using a hierarchy like this: I could use something like this (which reads much better): ****Would this make any difference? 3. My category pages show up in the search listings. Is this a bad thing? Should I nofollow or noindex? 4. Category and author pages triggers duplicate content in seomoz. Should I do anything about it? Should i make all the excerpts unique to avoid this? 4. Is the title tag recommendation of 66 characters with or without the brand name? Am I good as long as the post part of the title is less than 66? Remove the brand name from the title all together?****
On-Page Optimization | | mathiasppc0 -
What reasons exist to use noindex / robots.txt?
Hi everyone. I realise this may appear to be a bit of an obtuse question, but that's only because it is an obtuse question. What I'm after is a cataloguing of opinion - what reasons have SEOs had to implement noindex or add pages to their robots.txt on the sites they manage?
On-Page Optimization | | digitalstream0