Is a Rel Canonical Sufficient or Should I 'NoIndex'
-
Hey everyone,
I know there is literature about this, but I'm always frustrated by technical questions and prefer a direct answer or opinion. Right now, we've got recanonicals set up to deal with parameters caused by filters on our ticketing site. An example is that this:
http://www.charged.fm/billy-joel-tickets?location=il&time=day relcanonicals to...
http://www.charged.fm/billy-joel-tickets
My question is if this is good enough to deal with the duplicate content, or if it should be de-indexed. Assuming so, is the best way to do this by using the Robots.txt? Or do you have to individually 'noindex' these pages?
This site has 650k indexed pages and I'm thinking that the majority of these are caused by url parameters, and while they're all canonicaled to the proper place, I am thinking that it would be best to have these de-indexed to clean things up a bit.
Thanks for any input.
-
I totally agree with EGOL on this. I would like to add my 2cents since I think I am one of the only SEO people that is a developer too.
This is what I would do (in pseudo code) put a <rel="canonical" href="$url=strtok($_SERVER[" request_uri"],'?');"=""> </rel="canonical">
This is in php, I don't know what platform you are on, but what it will do in php is return the current url as the canonical and delete the ? and everything after. So basically it will return the url minus the query string. I use this technique a lot with my clients for doing canonical urls on CMS's that use query strings and it works great.
-
Hi - Just to throw in my two cents - the canonicals should do it as Moosa says but if you really want to de-index then a dynamic meta robots tag is the best way to get them out of the index in my experience.
That being said, having a quick look at your site it doesn't look like those url parameters are the issue, a quick look at something like this: site:charged.fm inurl:date= only shows a few thousand results and the location= and time= show even less - so looks like the rel canonicals are doing the job and will continue to with a bit of patience. If you look at urls with /event/ in them however you see a lot (300,000+) and I am guessing many of those are for past events. Google webmaster tools should help you id what the bulk of those 600 thousand urls are so worth verifying where the exact issue is before attempting to fix something that isn't a problem...
-
There are a few choices for managing parameters. I have used....
A) The URL parameter manager in the "crawl" options of Google Webmaster Tools. I have found it to be totally unreliable.
B) Rel=canonical. It is much more reliable than WMT but you still must rely on search engines to discover it and obey - which can be slow to take effect and is less than 100% effective.
I have not used robots.txt because I think that it would have similar performance to rel=canonical.
I have the belief that you shoud not trust search engines to do things for you that you can do for yourself with 100% reliability. So, I am doing ......
C). Managing parameters on my server with .htaccess so I have 100% control.
-
I believe if you have setup the rel canonical correctly there ideally should be no issue with that but if you really see some of your non preferred versions indexed in Google then you can go with the no index idea.
When no-indexing pages you can go with any approach but in my experience it is better do it by using robots.txt.
I hope this is a direct and to the point opinion J
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 Question
Alright, so let's say we've got an event coming up. The URL is website.com/event. On that page, you can access very small pages with small amounts of information, like website.com/event/register, website.com/event/hotel-info, and website.com/event/schedule. These originally came up as having missing meta descriptions, and I was thinking a rel=canonical might be the best approach, but I'm not sure. What do you think? Is there a better approach? Should I have just added a meta description and moved on?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWillner0 -
Absolute vs. Relative Canonical Links
Hi Moz Community, I have a client using relative links for their canonicals (vs. absolute) Google appears to be following this just fine, but bing, etc. are still sending organic traffic to the non-canonical links. It's a drupal setup. Anyone have advice? Should I recommend that all canonical links be absolute? They are strapped for resources, so this would be a PITA if it won't make a difference. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SimpleSearch1 -
What to do when all products are one of a kind WYSIWYG and url's are continuously changing. Lots of 404's
Hey Guys, I'm working on a website with WYSIWYG one of a kind products and the url's are continuously changing. There are allot of duplicate page titles (56 currently) but that number is always changing too. Let me give you guys a little background on the website. The site sells different types of live coral. So there may be anywhere from 20 - 150 corals of the same species. Each coral is a unique size, color etc. When the coral gets sold the site owner trashes the product creating a new 404. Sometimes the url gets indexed, other times they don't since the corals get sold within hours/days. I was thinking of optimizing each product with a keyword and re-using the url by having the client update the picture and price but that still leaves allot more products than keywords. Here is an example of the corals with the same title http://austinaquafarms.com/product-category/acans/ Thanks for the help guys. I'm not really sure what to do.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aronwp0 -
Confusion about forums and canonical links
Like many people, I get a lot of alerts about duplicate content, etc. I also don't know if I am hurting my domain authority because of the forum. It is a pretty active forum, so it is important to the site. So my question is, right now there could be 50 pages like this <domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrickPicker
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-1
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-2
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-3
all the way to:
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-50</domain></domain></domain></domain></domain> So right now the rel canonical links are set up just like above, including the page numbers. I am not sure if that is the best way or not. I really thought that all the of links for that topic should be
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/ that way it would passing "juice" to the main topic/link. </domain> I do have other links setup for:
link rel='next',link rel='up',link rel='last' Overall is this correct, or is there a better way to do it?0 -
Canonical link vs root domain
I have a wordpress website installed on http://domain.com/home/ instead of http://domain.com - Does it matter whether I leave it that way with a canonical link from the domain.com to the domain.com/home/ or should I move the wordpress files and database to the root domain?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JosephFrost0 -
Cross Domain Rel Canonical for Affiliates?
Hi We use the Cross Domain Rel Canonical for duplicate content between our own websites, but what about affiliates sites who want our XML feed, (descriptions of our products). We don´t mind being credited but would this present a danger for us? Who is controlling the use of that cross domain rel canonical, us in our feed or them? Is there another way around it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | xoffie0 -
Is it possible for a multi doctor practice to have the practice's picture displayed in Google's SERP?
Google now includes pictures of authors in the results of the pages. Therefore, a single practice doctor can include her picture into Google's SERP (http://markup.io/v/dqpyajgz7jkd). How can a multi doctor practice display the practice's picture as opposed to a single doctor? A search for Plastic Surgery Chicago displayed this (query: plastic surgery Chicago) http://markup.io/v/bx3f28ynh4w5. I found one example of a search result showing a picture of both doctors for a multi doctor practice (query: houston texas plastic surgeon). http://markup.io/v/t20gfazxfa6h
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CakeWebsites0 -
Canonical or 301 redirect, that is the question?
So my site has duplicate content issues because of the index.html and the www and non www version of the site. What's the best way to deal with this without htaccess? Is it a 301 redirect or is it the canonical, or is it both?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bronxpad0