Using the Canonical Tag
-
Hi, I have an issue that can be solve with a canonical tag, but I am not sure yet, we are developing a page full of statistics, like this:
But filled with hundreds of stats, so users can come and select only the stats they want to see and share with their friends, so it becomes like a new page with their slected stats:
The problems I see on this is:
All pages will be have a part of the content from the main page 1) and many of them will be exactly the same, so: duplicate content.
My idea was to add the canonical tag of "www.url.com/stats/" to all pages, similar as how Rand does it here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps
But I am not sure of this solution because the content is not exactly the same, page 2) will only have a part of the content that page 1) has, and in some cases just a very small part.
Is the canonical tag useful in this case?
Thank you!
-
thank you Sameer, thank you Peter, very useful!
-
As a standard practice, a webpage will not be considered duplicate if the content is 60% unique. However, having a "id" tag on the indexed pages is not a good user experience and Google certainly will not like too many pages will the id tags.
Here are three options that you can follow -
1. Go to "Parameter handling" in Site configuration settings in Google webmaster tools for your website and add "id" as on of the parameter. There is a good chance that Google will read this and ignore all the pages on your site with the parameter "id". We have tested this and found to be successful for ton of the parameters we use on our website including campaign tracking codes.
2. Continue using rel canonicals for duplicate pages so Google bot may not index it.
3. Make changes to your site code to each time a user creates a new page it will be created as a seperate url without any "id" parameter (similar to url shortners like bit.ly). This will allow you to tap in the UGC easily.
Thanks
Sameer
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
-
Does using cufon for H-tags etc hurt SEO?
Does the use of cufon for H-tags et al affect SEO/how Google views your website?
Technical SEO | | Alligator0 -
Noindex meta tag
Hi When following Webmaster Tools/Optimization/HTML Improvements it says that we have duplicate title tags and duplicate meta descriptions for hundreds of pages, As corrective action we have added to those pages and also changed title tags to make sure that they are different but still Webmaster keeps reporting that the duplication exist. Is it possible that google bot doesn't see our noindex code while crawling? By the way our seomoz report says that there is no duplicate title tag or meta description on our site google has crawled our site today and we received our report from seomoz today thanks
Technical SEO | | iskq0 -
Use of Multiple Tags
Hi, I have been monitoring some of the authority sites and I noticed something with one of them. This high authority site suddenly started using multiple tags for each post. And I mean, loads of tags, not just three of four. I see that each post comes with at least 10-20 tags. And these tags don't always make sense either. Let's say there is a video for "Bourne Legacy", they list tags like bourne, bourney legacy, bourne series, bourne videos, videos, crime movies, movies, crime etc. They don't even seem to care about duplicate content issues. Let's say the movie is named The Dragon, they would inclue dragon and the-dragon in tags list and despite those two category pages(/dragon and /the-dragon) being exactly the same now, they still wouldn't mind listing both the tags underneath the article. And no they don't use canonical tag. (there isn't even a canonical meta on any page of that site) So I am curious. Do they just know they have a very high DA, they don't need to worry about duplicate content issues? or; I am missing something here? Maybe the extra tags are doing more good than harm?
Technical SEO | | Gamer070 -
Should H1 tags include location?
I have an IT services company that is based out of Denver. In the past I always used Denver in the H1 tag like this "Denver IT Support & Managed Services" or "Denver Data Center Solutions" I know that H tags are not that important any more but I still want to put them on each page. My question is in a post panda world do those look too spammy? Should I not include Denver on each page. I have about 25 service pages that I was going to do this for. Each page will be different because of the service but I was going to include Denver on each page. On that same note how, I normally put never in the title for each page. Should I rethink this also? Obvisouly I want to rank on Denver and the service. Any help on this would be great. Thanks
Technical SEO | | ZiaTG0 -
Canonical Question
Our site has thousands of items, however using the old "Widgets" analogy we are unsure on how to implement the canonical tag, and if we need to at all. At the moment our main product pages lists all different "widget" products on one page, however the user can visit other sub pages that filter out the different versions of the product. I.e. glass widgets (20 products)
Technical SEO | | Corpsemerch
glass blue widgets (15 products)
glass red widgets (5 products)
etc.... I.e. plastic widgets (70 products)
plastic blue widgets (50 products)
plastic red widgets (20 products)
etc.... As the sub pages are repeating products from the main widgets page we added the canonical tag on the sub pages to refer to the main widget page. The thinking is that Google wont hit us with a penalty for duplicate content. As such the subpages shouldnt rank very well but the main page should gather any link juice from these subpages? Typically once we added the canonical tag it was coming up to the penguin update, lost a 20%-30% of our traffic and its difficult not to think it was the canonical tag dropping our subpages from the serps. Im tempted to remove the tag and return to how the site used to be repeating products on subpages.. not in a seo way but to help visitors drill down to what they want quickly. Any comments would be welcome..0 -
Canonical Issues
Hi Guys, I have a technical question. Ive started optimising an ecommerce site for a client and come across some duplicate content issues:- This page: http://www.bracknelllamps.com/projector-manufacturer/SANYO/70 is actually indexed in Google as:- http://www.bracknelllamps.com/projector-lamps.php?make=SANYO Both pages have the same content and I'm guessing the indexed page refers to an old way of navigating the site. As I'm concerned about duplicate content issues, what's the best approach as this seems to be the case for all 'projector manufacturer' pages. would it be to 301 redirect each manufacturer url (this could take forever with 107) manufacturers or rel="canonical" tag? to show Google which page I want indexing? Kind Regards Neil
Technical SEO | | nezona0 -
Does Bing support cross-domain canonical tags?
We have heard Bing takes canonical tags as hints, but do they support cross-domain canonical tags? I don't think this has ever been discussed? Does anyone have an answer or insight? Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | bonnierSEO0 -
Canonical tags and relative paths
Hi, I'm seeing a problem with Roger Bot crawling a clients site. In a campaign I am seeing you say that the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL. The tag is as follows:- /~/Standards-and....etc Google say:- relative paths are recognized as expected with the tag. Also, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL Is the issue with this, that there is a /~/, that there is no <base> link or just an issue with Roger? Best regards, Peter
Technical SEO | | peeveezee0