Big page of clients - links to individual client pages with light content - not sure if canonical or no-follow - HELP
-
Not sure what best practice here is: http://www.5wpr.com/clients/
Is this is a situation where I'm best off adding canonical tags back to the main clients page, or to the practice area each client falls under?
No-following all these links and adding canonical?
No-follow/No-index all client pages?
need some advice here...
-
Ya, I think that will be the best choice.
Good Luck!
-
okay cool - appreciate the input man. i think im just going to no-follow/no-index all the pages. and the big plan strategy is to slowly optimize each individual page as time goes on
-
problem is so many pages with light content - i feel like this is creating a situation where i have a small leak in a big boat - and fixing this page will plug that hole
-
I like the option of placing a 301 redirect from /clients**/index.cfm** to** /clients.**
Just remember to update both the links in your website menu as well as your sitemap.xml.
That will help with page load speed as well as having a very clean submitted sitemap.xml file.
-
If each specific client page is not going to be optimized in a way to be found organically in search results and they only serves as a value page for users who are already on your site, I would probably go with no-index/no-follow.
My logic here is that with the "no-index" you are not takings any risks with duplicate page issues and with "no-follow" your are not passing away link juice for no reason.
I don't think placing a canonical tag to each client would be the best recommended option since the goal of the canonical tag is to simply notify the search engines that page X is really a duplicate copy of page Y. In other words, you are telling search engines that these pages are exact copies of one another and to please pass all the link juice of X to Y without being penalized.
-
I definitely wouldn't canonical them because as far as I can tell the content on the individual client pages is unique.
Honestly I don't see why you're worried. The pages all have unique content and contain no external links. If the main client page contained direct links to the clients' sites then I could see their being an issue but you shouldn't have to nofollow internal links.
-
Maybe a 301 from /clients**/index.cfm** to /clients - is a better option than the canonical to maintain all link equity.
So you think adding a no-index to the links is best option - over a no-follow or even a no-index/no-follow?
I was thinking of adding a canonical tag on each client - to - their respective practice area to help build the authority and ensure importance of the practice areas
-
that's what my plan of action is going to be - but for the mean time i need to figure out what the hell to do with these links
-
That is a very impressive list of clients, however from a UX point of view it's far too many to list on one page.
Instead why not have a dozen or so featured clients which have more in depth case-study each explaining how you approached each project. Then the rest of the clients can be a non-linked list. Maybe you can show a small description on hover of each client.
That would satisfy the SEO aspect as well. You would have a few strong case-study pages, and the rest of the content will be indexed also, just all on one page. Hope this helps.
-
Hi There!
I think the bigger issue here is that the page http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ is a duplicate copy of **http://www.5wpr.com/clients/index.cfm . **
That being said, I think your best option here is to set up a canonical tag from one of the pages to the other. You will need to determine which page you will want to use as your primary page.
Right now the /clients**/index.cfm ** page has a lot more authority than the **/clients/ **page. It is a shame that **/clients/index.cfm **is the page that is being linked through the website menu, since **http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ **is a lot more user friendly.
As far as each individual client's page, some are coming up as duplicate copies to other press releases, company sites, etc (per copyscape.com) while others are not. Looking at the title tag or the content through each of these client pages, they did not seem like major pages that you are targeting to be found organically in the search results, so I would probably just no-index those pages to be on the safe side.
That being said, I too am interested to know how others would handle this situation.
I hope that 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
-
Rel=Canonical For Landing Pages
We have PPC landing pages that are also ranking in organic search. We've decided to create new landing pages that have been improved to rank better in natural search. The PPC team however wants to use their original landing pages so we are unable to 301 these pages to the new pages being created. We need to block the old PPC pages from search. Any idea if we can use rel=canonical? The difference between old PPC page and new landing page is much more content to support keyword targeting and provide value to users. Google says it's OK to use rel=canonical if pages are similar but not sure if this applies to us. The old PPC pages have 1 paragraph of content followed by featured products for sale. The new pages have 4-5 paragraphs of content and many more products for sale. The other option would be to add meta noindex to the old PPC landing pages. Curious as to what you guys think. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
Better to have less pages with more related content?
I work with a law firm and we are having a hard time busting into the first page of results for any of our keywords. I am new at SEO and have been trying to analyze how are competitors have an edge over us when on paper we are better optimized than their websites. One glaring difference is they have fewer webpages, which possibly makes each of their pages more keyword rich. Would it be smarter to condense our many webpages/topics into less, more general web pages? I hope my question is even making sense, thanks for any possible help! Our site is http://www.utahdefenseattorney.net/
Technical SEO | | MyOwnSEO0 -
Moving Some Content From Page A to Page B
Page A has written content, pictures, videos. The written content from Page A is being moved to Page B. When Google crawls the pages next time around will Page B receive the content credit? Will there not be any issues that this content originally belonged to Page A? Page A is not a page I want to rank for (just have great pictures and videos for users). Can I 301 redirect from Page A to B since the written content from A has been deleted or no need? Again, I intent to keep Page A live because good value for users to see pictures and videos.
Technical SEO | | khi50 -
I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem." Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority." So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too 🙂 Dana
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Showing duplicate content when I have canonical url set, why?
Just inspecting my sites report and I see that I have a lot of duplicate content issues, not sure why these two pages here http://www.thecheapplace.com/wholesale-products/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch http://www.thecheapplace.com/wholesale-products/small-wholesale-patches-1/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch are showing as duplicate content when both pages have a clearly defined canonical url of http://www.thecheapplace.com/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch Any answer would be appreciated, thank you
Technical SEO | | erhansimavi0 -
I am trying to correct error report of duplicate page content. However I am unable to find in over 100 blogs the page which contains similar content to the page SEOmoz reported as having similar content is my only option to just dlete the blog page?
I am trying to correct duplicate content. However SEOmoz only reports and shows the page of duplicate content. I have 5 years worth of blogs and cannot find the duplicate page. Is my only option to just delete the page to improve my rankings. Brooke
Technical SEO | | wianno1680 -
Advice on display this content on my page for search engines
Hi, my website http://www.in2town.co.uk/Holiday-News is about bringing travel and holiday news to our readers of our lifestyle magazine but i am having problems at the moment with the layout. What i mean by this is, i have written content on the page as an introduction so google knows what this section of the site is about but to be honest it looks rubbish with having the introduction there and i would like to know if i am doing the right thing by having the content there for google to know what my site is about. I have tried taking it away and noticed i dropped in the rankings and when i have put it back up i go up in the rankings, can anyone please give me some advice over this issue
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Which version of pages should I build links to?
I'm working on the site www.qualityauditor.co.uk which is built in Moonfruit. Moonfruit renders pages in Flash. Not ideal, I know, but it also automatically produces an HTML version of every page for those without Flash, Javascript and search engines. This HTML version is fairly well optimised for search engines, but sits on different URLs. For example, the page you're likely to see if browsing the site is at http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/#/iso-9001-lead-auditor-course/4528742734 However, if you turn Javascript off you can see the HTML version of the page here <cite>http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/page/4528742734</cite> Mostly, it's the last version of the URL which appears in the Google search results for a relevant query. But not always. Plus, in Google Webmaster Tools fetching as Googlebot only shows page content for the first version of the URL. For the second version it returns HTTP status code and a 302 redirect to the first version. I have two questions, really: Will these two versions of the page cause my duplicate content issues? I suspect not as the first version renders only in Flash. But will Google think the 302 redirect for people is cloaking? Which version of the URL should I be pointing new links to (bearing in mind the 302 redirect which doesn't pass link juice). The URL's which I see in my browser and which Google likes the look at when I 'fetch as Googlebot'. Or those Google shows in the search results? Thanks folks, much appreciated! Eamon
Technical SEO | | driftnetmedia0