Do you lose link juice when stripping query strings with canonicals?
-
It is well known that when page A canonicals to page B, some link juice is lost (similar to a 301). So imagine I have the following pages:
Page A: www.mysite.com/main-page which has the tag: <link rel="canonical" href="http: www.mysite.com="" main-page"=""></link rel="canonical" href="http:>
Page B: www.mysite.com/main-page/sub-page which is a variation of Page A, so it has a tag
I know that links to page B will lose some of their SEO value, as if I was 301ing from page B to page A.
Question:
What about this link: www.mysite.com/main-page?utm_medium=moz&utm_source=qa&utm_campaign=forum
Will it also lose link juice since the query string is being stripped by the canonical tag? In terms of SEO, is this like a redirect?
-
You can check the cache copy, in some cases Google appends the parameter and in some cases it does not. This depends on the authority of the specific URL.
-
This is not 100% a fact, but i think you will lose "some" juice but certainly not significant!
-
Thanks for the quick and thorough response, Sajeet.
I just need a little clarification:
In the example you gave: www.mysite.com/main-page?medium=abc this page will be canonicaled to www.mysite.com/main-page. Are you saying that in such a case I will lose some link juice but not when the query string has utm parameters? If this is what you mean, how do you know that Google treats different query strings differently?
-
Hi,
Regarding UTM parameters, if implemented correctly, Google will not treat it as a separate URL. For example - www.mysite.com/main-page?utm_medium=moz&utm_source=qa&utm_campaign=forum and www.mysite.com/main-page will be treated as the same page.
For manual tagging always remember, you can only add the following parameters -
- Campaign Medium
- Campaign Source
- Campaign Term
- Campaign Content
- Campaign Name
Canonical tags should be placed under the following circumstances -
- When 301 is not an option
- When you append dynamic parameters to URLs that Google will treat as a separate entity For example - www.mysite.com/main-page?medium=abc
In your case I would suggest that there is no need to place a canonical tag since the tagging adheres to Google guidelines. However for hygiene purposes you can place a self canonical tag.
Note - I have noticed that in some PPC campaigns people append the URL with utm_adgroup. Please note that this is wrong technique and Google does not recognize it. In such scenarios, use auto tagging instead.
Regards,
Sajeet
-
You asked a very similar question earlier: http://moz.com/community/q/are-links-with-query-strings-worse-for-seo
Like iQSEO-UK said back then we haven't seen big impact on SEO with urls with query strings and specially utm tracking. I personally havent had any issues as well with duplicated content, or results double in the search engines or something. When you 301 it, if will have some loss in juice, and i suggest with a canonical this does as wel a little bit, but nothing significant for sure!
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
-
What link would be better?
Hi Guys, Just wondering what would be better in this instance: finding an old post (with good authority) and getting a link from that old article or creating a brand new article and adding the link to that. Finding an old post (with good authority) and getting a link from that old article Creating a brand new article and adding the link to that. Both naturally link out to the page you want a link too. To me, number 1 as the page already has authority but then again number 2 since Google might place some weight to recency. Any thoughts? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | spyaccounts140 -
Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Problem with internal links
Hello! Our domain, http://www.unionroom.com/, is having a strange issue with OSE in that it is telling us our internal pages aren't linking to one another. An example of this is that it is showing our About page ( http://www.unionroom.com/about/ ) only having three links, but this link appears twice on every single page on the website (~200 pages) in the header and footer. We've hung around for a little while to see if OSE would correct itself, but it hasn't and this now suggests that it may be an issue with our in-linking structure. Can anyone spot any issues with our build? The rest of the websites that we produce, that are all built in the same way, all have healthy internal linking structures according to OSE. Very confusing! Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unionroom0 -
E-commerce site structure & link juice: Bouncing off an idea
Hi guys, Question from a new-comer in SEO. Summary of the situation: potential customers are searching for a generic product category (buy mountainbike) more often than a brand in that category (Specialized MTB). And the latter is searched more often than a specific product ('some specific product from Specialized brand'). Both the brand pages and product pages are not ranking good Then would it be a good idea to have the category pages only link to the brand pages? They may show the products, but the links wouldn't pass link juice. I'm not even sure if that is technically possible, but I wanted to figure out the merit first. I'm hoping this would support the brand pages to rank better as they take in more volume. Please do feel free to teach me!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter850 -
Alternative to rel canonical?
Hello there, we have a problem. Let's say we have a website www.mainwebsite.com Then you have 40 websites like this: www.retailer1.mainwebsite.com www.retailer2.mainwebsite.com www.retailer3.mainwebsite.com www.retailer4.mainwebsite.com www.retailer5.mainwebsite.com www.retailer6.mainwebsite.com … an so on In order to avoid the duplicate content penalty from Google we've added a rel="canonical" in each 40 sub-websites mapping each page of them to www.mainwebsite.com Our issue is that now, all our retailers (each owner of www.retailer-X.mainwebsite.com) are complaining about the fact that they are disappeared from Google. How can we avoid to use rel="canonical" in the sub-website and not being penalised by Google for duplicate content in www.mainwebsite.com? Many thanks, all your advices are much appreciated. YESdesign team
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | YESdesign0 -
I currently have a client that has multiple domains for multiple brands that share the same IP Address. Will link juice be passed along to the different sites when they link to one another or will it simply be considered internal linking?
I have 7 brands that are owned by the same company, each with their own domain. The brands work together to form products that are then sold to the consumer although there is not a e-commerce aspect to any of the sites. I am looking to create a modified link wheel between the sites, but didn't know if my efforts would pay off due to the same IP Address for all the sites. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HughesDigital0 -
<rel canonical="">and Query Strings</rel>
How are you supposed to <rel canonical="" tag="">a page with a query string that has already been indexed? It's not like you're serving that page from a CMS where you have an original page with content to add to the head tag.</rel> For example.... Original Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php Query String Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php?src=FrontDoorBox Would adding the <rel canonical="" tag="">to the original page, referencing itself, be the solution so that the next time the original page is crawled, the bot will know that the previously indexed URL with query string should actually be the "original"? That's the only solution I can come up with because there's no way to find the query string rendered page to tag with the canonical.....</rel>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Yun0 -
Footer sitewide links
Here's a question - does having a "website designed by" reference in the footer of every page of one of your clients help or hurt? I have a major university .edu that I designed a site for one of their departments and it is just about to launch and they've allowed me to put a reference in the footer. I've had pretty good luck with this on my other clients' sites, but didn't know if this practice is seen as spammy. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chas-2957210