Canonical URLs being ignored?
-
Hi Guys,
Has anybody noticed canonical URLs being ignored where they were previously obeyed?
I have a site that is doing this at the moment and just wondered if this was being seen elsewhere and if anyone knows what the solution is?
Thanks,
Elias
-
I've usually seen it in cases like what Istvan mentioned - somehow, another signal comes into play. Maybe it's new links to the non-canonical URLs, maybe some internal pages with old links get crawled, maybe a new 301 or canonical comes into play that conflicts with the existing canonical.
If they're being ignore now, then it's possible you're using the canonical tag as a band-aid, for lack of a better term, and the underlying problem that caused the duplicates is still in play. If Google's really being indecisive, you may want to take a closer look at that underlying problem and not just rely on canonicals.
Generally, the tag is pretty strong, but Google does get it wrong from time to time. Sorry, it's hard to advise based on generalities. The devil is in the details on these situations, I find.
-
It was the same at that website also... This is why they have asked me if I have seen similar situations... and while investigating it, the most logical answer was this.
I hope it will resolve the issue for you also!
Cheers,
Istvan
-
Thanks István
I'm not sure if it is the same thing but I will look into it. It just seems odd to suddenly ignore Canonical URLs.
Thanks
-
Hi Elias,
I have seen a similar issue a few months ago at an ex employer. In their case 301 redirects have been ignored!
So basically what happened:
- They had an older link structure which they have redirected to the new url versions (this happened around 2009-2010)
- After a "silence" period in affiliate marketing they have reactivated their affiliate programs and heavily invested in it.
- Because of no. 2. they have gained a lot of incoming links with the old links
Now what we believe went wrong is that Google could interpret this as an "accidental" 301 redirect because of the high number new incoming links to the old version.
As far as I know, when they resolved their affiliate links everything went back to normal.
It might be that your situation is a similar one to theirs.
I hope it helps,
Istvan
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
-
Should we include URLs with parameters in the sitemap?
Hi, I wanted to know whether we can include URLs with search parameters in the sitemap. Currently, we are trying to append structured data for our job listing page. There happens to be a large number of job listings around 1000 pages with unique job-id and location. Should we add these pages in the sitemap or is there any other solution to this? Regards, Tejas
Algorithm Updates | | tejasbansode0 -
Is it possible (or advisable) to try to rank for a keyword that is 'split' across subfolders in your url?
For example, say your keyword was 'funny hats' - ideally you'd make your url 'website.com/funny-hats/' But what if 'hats' is already a larger category in your site that you want to rank for as its own keyword? Could you then try to rank for 'funny hats' using the url 'website.com/hats/funny/' ? Basically what I'm asking is, would it be harmful to the chances of ranking for your primary keyword if it's split across the url like this, and not necessarily in the correct order?
Algorithm Updates | | rwat0 -
Duplicate Content on Product Pages with Canonical Tags
Hi, I'm an SEO Intern for a third party wine delivery company and I'm trying to fix the following issue with the site regarding duplicate content on our product pages: Just to give you a picture of what I'm dealing with, the duplicate product pages that are being flagged have URLs that have different Geo-variations and Product-Key Variations. This is what Moz's Site Crawler is seeing as Duplicate content for the URL www.example.com/wines/dry-red/: www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g123456 www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g456789 www.example.com/wines/California/_/N-0 We have loads of product pages with dozens of duplicate content and I'm coming to the conclusion that its the product keys that are confusing google. So we had the web development team put the canonical tag on the pages but still they were being flagged by google. I checked the of the pages and found that all the pages that had 2 canonical tags I understand we should only have one canonical tag in the so I wanted to know if I could just easily remove the second canonical tag and will it solve the duplicate content issue we're currently having? Any suggestions? Thanks -Drew
Algorithm Updates | | drewstorys0 -
Do we take a SEO hit for having multiple URLs on an infinite scroll page vs a site with many pages/URLs. If we do take a hit, quantify the hit we would suffer.
We are redesigning a preschool website which has over 100 pages. We are looking at 2 options and want to make sure we meet the best user experience and SEO. Option 1 is to condense the site into perhaps 10 pages and window shade the content. For instance, on the curriculum page there would be an overview and each age group program would open via window shade. Option 2 is to have an overview and then each age program links to its own page. Do we lose out on SEO if there are not unique URLS? Or is there a way using metatags or other programming to have the same effect?
Algorithm Updates | | jgodwin0 -
Is having an identical title, h1 and url considered "over optimization"? Is it better to vary?
To get some new pages out without over-thinking things, I decided to line up the title tag, h1 tag and URLs of my pages exactly. They are dynamically generated based on the content the user is viewing (internal search results pages) They're not ranking very well at the moment, but there are a number of factors that are likely to blame. But, in particular, does anyone know if varying the text in these elements tends to perform better vs. having them all identical? Has there been any information from Google about this? Most if not all of the "over optimization" content I have seen online pertains to backlinks, not on-page content. It's easy to say, "test it!" And of course, that's just what I'm planning to do. But I thought I would leverage the combined knowledge of this forum to see what information I could obtain first, so I can do some informed testing, as tests can take a while to see results. Thanks 🙂
Algorithm Updates | | ntcma0 -
How Additional Characters and Numbers in URL affect SEO
Hi fellow SEOmozers, I noticed that a lot of websites have additional characters and words at the end of the URL in addition keyword optimized URL. Mostly for E-Commerce sites For example: www.yoursite.com/category/keyword?id=12345&Keyword--Category--cm_jdkfls_dklj or wwww.yoursite.com/category/keyword#83939=-37292 My question is how does the additional characters or parameters(not necessarily tracking parameters) affect SEO? Does it matter if i have additional keywords in the additional stuff in the URL (1st url example)? If you can provide more information, that would be helpful. Thank you!
Algorithm Updates | | TommyTan0 -
Check canonicalization work implemented on URL
Hi I was wondering how to check canonicalization when it's not working properly - I am getting redirect from http://www to www but not from non www version to www version of URL) - so, how do I check the type of redirect in place already in the URL? Is there a tool for testing this? Thanks, Luke
Algorithm Updates | | McTaggart0 -
Why does Google say they have more URLs indexed for my site than they really do?
When I do a site search with Google (i.e. site:www.mysite.com), Google reports "About 7,500 results" -- but when I click through to the end of the results and choose to include omitted results, Google really has only 210 results for my site. I had an issue months back with a large # of URLs being indexed because of query strings and some other non-optimized technicalities - at that time I could see that Google really had indexed all of those URLs - but I've since implemented canonical URLs and fixed most (if not all) of my technical issues in order to get our index count down. At first I thought it would just be a matter of time for them to reconcile this, perhaps they were looking at cached data or something, but it's been months and the "About 7,500 results" just won't change even though the actual pages indexed keeps dropping! Does anyone know why Google would be still reporting a high index count, which doesn't actually reflect what is currently indexed? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | CassisGroup0