Transferring link juice from a canonical URL to an SEO landing page.
-
I have URLs that I use for SEM ads in Google. The content on those pages is duplicate (affiliate). Those pages also have dynamic parameters which caused lots of duplicate content pages to be indexed. I have put a canonical tag on the Parameter pages to consolidate everything to the canonical URL. Both the canonical URL and the Parameter URLs have links pointing to them. So as it stands now, my canonical URL is still indexed, but the parameter URLs are not. The canonical page is still made up of affiliate (duplicate) content though.
I want to create an equivalent SEO landing page with unique content. But I'd like to do two things 1) remove the canonical URL from the index - due to duplicate affiliate content, and 2) transfer the link juice from the canonical URL over to the SEO URL. I'm thinking of adding a meta NoIndex, follow tag to the canonical tag - and internally linking to the new SEO landing page. Does this strategy work? I don't want to lose the link juice on the canonical URL by adding a meta noindex tag to it.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
Rob
-
Yes, I am actually one of those third party affiliates, so I need to remove those pages from the index as currently there are 61,000 pages indexed (all duplicate, affiliate content).
As I slowly build SEO pages I plan to index my SEO side of the site bit by bit. The strange thing is that teh SEM pages do have links, they are coming organically just from being in the publics eye. In a way its a nice problem to have, as I'm hoping to capture the juice and funnel it over to the new SEO pages. make sense?
Best,
Rob
PS - i'm up for coffee anytime. I'll let you know when I'm in town.
-
This is a little hard to talk through without seeing it, but I think I see where you're coming from. You have content on the current canonical page that third-party affiliates are also using on their sites - is that right?
Is the content different enough that you can't just canonical the SEM pages over to the organic page? In any case, I think your solution is fine as long as the organic page is the page that can be found through navigation. If the SEM pages don't have external links (I don't know why they would) it's really not a big deal - even adding links is probably unnecessary because it's not going to help much from an orphaned SEM page with no link equity.
-
Sure, let's get a coffee! Feel free to PM me when you get here.
-
Carson,
BTW - thanks for answering my question - that was a complicated question, and it took some thought on your part to answer it. I appreciate it.
Also - I see you are in the Salt Lake City area. I am moving to SLC in the next few months. Currently I'm traveling there for business one week per month. It would be neat to meet you in person. Let me know if you are interested, and maybe we can connect in person one of these days.
Rob
-
Carson,
Thanks for your response. I had been planning to no-index the canonical page because the canonical version has affiliate (duplicate) content in it. My new SEO page has unique content, and is different than the other SEM pages - both the root canonical page, as well as its parameter URL's. So as it stands now, I am consolidating the SEM pages (parameter pages) using a canonical - pointing to the root SEM URL (which also has affiliate content). Then I am no-indexing, follow that page - and linking to the new SEO page using a link in the breadcrumbs to pass the link juice.
If I don't do this, my only alternative is to try and make the SEM page be the same as the SEO page and canonicalize the SEO page - but that will handcuff me quite a bit as far as the SEO page is concerned as I would be limited in design, etc. Does that make sense?
Thanks for your interest and response.
Rob
-
Sorry this took a while to address! I would definitely not noindex a URL that is canonical. Rather, make the organic version (the version that can be reached by navigating the site - don't try to rank with a very similar page that floats outside the standard site structure) the canonical URL. It's fairly standard practice to noindex, follow PPC landing pages, and it works fine. Unless the PPC landing pages are somehow being linked to, there's not really any need to add canonical tags or internal links.
If the PPC pages do have links, it's usually because they've found their way into the primary structure at some point. In these cases you can 301 consolidate the pages or use canonical tags for exact duplicates. Again, it doesn't really matter except in the very rare cases where PPC pages have valuable external linking domains.
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
-
Reasonable to Ask URL of Link from SEO Providing New Links before Link Activation?
My firm has hired an SEO to create links to our site. We asked the SEO to provide a list of domains that they are targeting for potential links. The SEO did not agree to this request on the grounds that the list is their unique intellectual property. Alternatively I asked the SEO to provide the URL that will be linking to our site before the link is activated. The SEO did not agree to this. However, they did say we could provide comments afterwards so they could tweak their efforts when the next 4-5 links are obtained next month. The SEO is adamant that the links will not be spam. For whatever it is worth the SEO was highly recommended. I am an end user; the owner and operator of a commercial real estate site, not an SEO or marketing professional. Is this protectiveness over process and data typical of link building providers? I want to be fair with the provider and hope I will be working with them a long time, however I want to ensure I receive high quality links. Should I be concerned? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan0 -
Location Pages On Website vs Landing pages
We have been having a terrible time in the local search results for 20 + locations. I have Places set up and all, but we decided to create location pages on our sites for each location - brief description and content optimized for our main service. The path would be something like .com/location/example. One option that has came up in question is to create landing pages / "mini websites" that would probably be location-example.url.com. I believe that the latter option, mini sites for each location, would be a bad idea as those kinds of tactics were once spammy in the past. What are are your thoughts and and resources so I can convince my team on the best practice.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KJ-Rodgers0 -
Replace dynamic paramenter URLs with static Landing Page URL - faceted navigation
Hi there, got a quick question regarding faceted navigation. If a specific filter (facet) seems to be quite popular for visitors. Does it make sense to replace a dynamic URL e.x http://www.domain.com/pants.html?a_type=239 by a static, more SEO friendly URL e.x http://www.domain.com/pants/levis-pants.html by creating a proper landing page for it. I know, that it is nearly impossible to replace all variations of this parameter URLs by static ones but does it generally make sense to do this for the most popular facets choose by visitors. Or does this cause any issues? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ennovators0 -
Effect of Removing Footer Links In all Pages Except Home Page
Dear MOZ Community: In an effort to improve the user interface of our business website (a New York CIty commercial real estate agency) my designer eliminated a standardized footer containing links to about 20 pages. The new design maintains this footer on the home page, but all other pages (about 600 eliminate the footer). The new design does a very good job eliminating non essential items. Most of the changes remove or reduce the size of unnecessary design elements. The footer removal is the only change really effect the link structure. The new design is not launched yet. Hoping to receive some good advice from the MOZ community before proceeding My concern is that removing these links could have an adverse or unpredictable effect on ranking. Last Summer we launched a completely redesigned version of the site and our ranking collapsed for 3 months. However unlike the previous upgrade this modifications does not URL names, tags, text or any major element. Only major change is the footer removal. Some of the footer pages provide good (not critical) info for visitors. Note the footer will still appear on the home page but will be removed on the interior pages. Are we risking any detrimental ranking effect by removing this footer? Can we compensate by adding text links to these pages if the links from the footer are removed? Seems irregular to have a home page footer but no footer on the other pages. Are we inviting any downgrade, penalty, adverse SEO effect by implementing this? I very much like the new design but do not want to risk a fall in rank and traffic. Thanks for your input!!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan0 -
Refactoring 20,000+ URLs and the SEO impact
I run a site that is largely powered by user reviews. We have almost 20,000 reviews, and each review has its own unique URL (/items/item-reviewed/reviews/1), as each one is quite lengthy and detailed (much longer than the normal Yelp review). Of course, the item being reviewed has its own URL (/items/item-reviewed), and we would very much prefer users are driven to that page rather than a review page in search results. I've been looking into ways to improve our SEO, and I'm wondering if the current structure is hurting our SEO to the item page, and if so, what is the best way to 'solve' the issue without causing future SEO issues. Basically, are the 20,000 (and growing) review pages reducing the SEO impact of the actual item pages? I'd like to get the content in the reviews indexed, but not at the expense of negative SEO impact on the items being reviewed. I have several follow-up questions if the answer to my question is indeed 'Yes, it is negatively impacting the SEO of your item page', so I'll await a response. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jhdavids80 -
Optimal URLs for SEO and UX
We are considering restructuring the URL scheme on one of the websites we maintain. We have a few options. Currently news article URLs are as follows:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter264
http://domain.com/news/1234/article-title-name/ Download section URLs are as follows:
http://domain.com/downloads/files/1234/file-title-of-download-here/ Forum URLS:
http://forum.domain.com/forum/topic/1234/title-of-forum-topic-here/ We feel that these are a bit too long for both SEO and user experience. We want to remove as many directories from the URLs as possible. From experience, what do you recommend changing for the example URLs above? We have some ideas below...and we need to keep the ID in the URLs...however I know this is a little frustrating. Some ideas we have for news articles:
http://domain.com/news/article-title-shorter-1234
http://domain.com/article-title-shorter-n1234 Some ideas for the download pages:
http://domain.com/downloads/file-title-shorter-d1234
http://domain.com/downloads/files/file-title-shorter-1234
http://domain.com/file-title-shorter-d1234 Some ideas for the forum URLs:
http://forum.domain.com/topic-title-shorter-t1234
http://forum.domain.com/topic/topic-title-shorter-1234 What do you think of these suggestions? Any other URL ideas? Recommended URL length? The purpose of is question was to find the perfect URLs for the site we are working on; your thoughts, suggestions and tips are very much appreciated.0 -
Corporate pages and SEO help
We own and operate more than two dozen educational related sites. The business team is attempting to standardize some parts of our site hierarchy so that our sitemap.php, about.php, privacy.php and contact.php are all at the root directory. Our sitemap.php is generated by our sitemap.xml files, which are generated from our URLlist.txt files. I need to provide some feedback on this initiative. I'm worried about adding more stand-alone pages to our root directory and as part of a separate optimization in the future I was planning to suggest we group the "privacy", "about" and "contact" pages in a separate folder. We generally try to put our most important pages/directories for SEO in the root as our homepages pass a lot of link juice and have high authority. We do not invest SEO time into optimizing these pages as they're not pages we're trying to rank for, and I've already been looking into even no-following all links to them from our footer, sitemap, etc. I know that adding these "corporate" pages to a site are usually a standard part of the design process but is there any SEO benefit to having them at the root? And along the same lines, is there any SEO harm to having unimportant pages at the root? What do you guys think out there in Moz land?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_edvisors0