Should my canonical tags point to the category page or the filter result page?
-
Hi Moz,
I'm working on an ecommerce site with categories, filter options, and sort options – teacherexpress.scholastic.com.
Should I have canonical tags from all filter and sort options point to the category page like gap.com and llbean.com? or have all sort options point to the filtered page URL like kohls.com?
I was under the impression that to use a canonical tag, the pages have to have the same content, meaning that Gap and L.L. Bean would be using canonical tags incorrectly. Using a filter changes the content, whereas using a sort option just changes the order.
What would be the best way to deal with duplicate content for this site?
Thanks for reading!
-
Hi Daniel,
You've gotten some good responses to your question. Do you have any additional questions or comments you would like to add?
-
I agree, that's a great approach. I think you mean Javascript, not Java though (that's a different language). The only thing that might make this approach a challenge would be if you had so much product data before filtering that it caused a performance problem, i.e. let's say you had 50 pages of results...if you filter server-side, you're only sending down 1 page of results, whereas if you're filtering with client-side Javascript, you've got to send all 50 pages down and then filter it in the browser.
-
Hi Daniel,
Another option may be use java on your filter page so that however customers filter the product, the URL will remain the same with extra parameters in the URL to filter out the products. I find this the best way as you have the same URL for all sort of customization/filter and able to avoid duplicate content.
For example: Macys
-
Hi Daniel,
You're going to have to walk a fine line between having a page for every possible combination of filtered results that a user might search for AND appearing to have a ton of pages that are really almost identical....and suffering the wrath of Panda upon seeing what it thinks is duplicate content.
The easy way out is to have 1 page for each category, and no matter what filters are applied, rel=canonical to that category. Dupe content problem solved.
So why isn't this the ideal solution?
#1 You may be missing out on targeting combinations of categories and filters that users will commonly search for. Let's say you were selling clothing, and a category was shirts, and you had a filter for men/women/boys/girls. By making all shirts list pages rel=canonical to the overall shirts list page (with no filters), you'd be missing an opportunity to target "boys shirts".
#2 You may be missing opportunities to pour more link juice to the individual product pages. It's unclear (to me, anyway) whether Google adds the link juice from all pages rel=canonical'ed to a page, or whether Google simply treats rel=canonical as "oh ya, I've already seen & dealt with this page". Certainly in my testing I've seen places where pages rel=canonical'ed to another page actually still show up in the search results, so I'd say rel=canonical isn't as solid as a 301.
So what do you do? I'd recommend a mix. Figure out what combinations you think you can get search traffic from, and find a way to break down the complete set of combinations of filters and categories to target those, and to rel=canonical every page to one of your targeted pages.
It's entirely possible (likely, even) that you'll end up with a mix. For instance, going back to my earlier example, let's say you had another filter that was, let's say, price range. You might want to target "boys shirts", but not "boys shirts under $20". So, while "boys" was a filter value, and "under $20" was a filter value, you might rel=canonical all pages in the category "boys" with a filter value of "shirts" to your page that has just that category and that 1 filter set, regardless of setting of the price filter.
Clear as monkey poop?
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
-
Do the back-links go wasted when anchor text or context content doesn't match with page content?
Hi Community, I have seen number of back-links where the content in that link is not matching with page content. Like page A linking to page B, but content is not really relevant beside brand name. Like page with "vertigo tiles" linked to page about "vertigo paints" where "vertigo" is brand name. Will these kind of back-links completely get wasted? I have also found some broken links which I'm planning to redirect to existing pages just to reclaim the back-links even though the content relevancy is not much beside brand name. Are these back-links are beneficial or not? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Page content is not very similar but topic is same: Will Google considers the rel canonical tags?
Hi Moz community, We have multiple pages from our own different sub-domains for same topics. These pages even rank in SERP for related keywords. Now we are planning to show only one of the pages in SERP. We cannot redirect unfortunately. We are planning to use rel canonical tags. But the page content is not same, only 20% is similar and 80% is different but the context is same. If we use rel canonicals, does Google accepts this? If not what should I do? Making header tags similar works? How Google responds if content is not matching? Just ignore or any negative score? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
On-Page Markup: Still a Worthwhile Practice?
So I have a question for the community that hopefully someone can help me with. Previously, whenever I created/worked on a website, when I would create or edit the content, I would bold the keywords, italicize certain items, add internal/external links and generally mark-up the content. More recently, however, I've noticed that both my client and many of their leading competitors have abandoned this practice. Now, it appears that all the text appears as plain text, there are rarely bold or italicized items and there does not seem to be as much emphasis on inserting internal/external links. While I understand the ladder to still be an effective/holistic approach to SEO, I'm wondering why the former (the bold, italicized, text variation) has gone by the wayside. So with that, is adding bold/italicized text still a worthwhile SEO technique and is it something I should continue applying to sites I work on? Please advise.
Algorithm Updates | | maxcarnage0 -
Search Bar Under Brand In Search Result
I must have missed this or been living under a rock but when I type 'amazon' in a google search. Below Amazon.com I see a "search amazon.com" search bar. How do you get this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | Mike.NW1 -
Why is a sub page ranking over home page?
Hey guys! I was wondering whether any of you Mozzers out there could shed some light on this query for me. Currently, one of our clients is ranking (on the second page, at least) for one of their target keywords. However, it's not the home page that is ranking - it is a sub page. I guess you could say both are targeted to rank for the keyword in question but the home page has a considerable more PA (+10) and has a lot more incoming links so it's a little bit baffling as to why the sub page has been given an advantage. Does anyone know why this may be? Also, on a secondary note, should I continue to build links to the home page or target this particular sub page to have a better chance of ranking higher for the keyword? Any advice on this welcome! Cheers!
Algorithm Updates | | Webrevolve0 -
Has anyone else noticed a major increase in Yelp, BBB, etc. results in local SERPs, pushing business websites further down?
Across multiple cities and markets, this seems to be a trend. "Chicago coffee shop" or "Minneapolis hair salon" or "Sacramento car repair" - outside the local 7-pack, virtually every result is Yelp, BBB, Yellowpages, etc. Is this related to algo changes, or simply a result of those national sites pumping major resources into SEO? It just seems to be suddenly far more prevalent than it was even 6 months ago.
Algorithm Updates | | kpclaypool1 -
Not necessary to have keywords in the page? Do you agree?
I am being told by my SEO consultants that: "According to present Google algorithm it is not necessary to have keywords in the page. What is more required is the content is relevant to the page and whether visitors will stay on that page or not. If visitors stay for a longer time in your site it add bonus to the ranking of the site. So I think it is not necessary to add key phrases in the content." Do you agree?
Algorithm Updates | | PegCorwin0 -
Good results in Web Search, getting worse in Mobile Search
We are redirecting mobile visotors from http://www.1website.com to http://m.2website.com. 1website position in web SERPS is always the same. But mobile search brings less visitors now, 1website is loosing positions there. I know keywords volume is increasing. What could be the reason? (m.2website mobile version is high quality and have very good bounce, pageviews, time on site)
Algorithm Updates | | bele0