How to choose the best canonical URL
-
In a duplicate content situation, and assuming that both rel=canonical and a 301 redirect pass link equity (I know there is still some speculation on this), how should you choose the "best" version of the URL to establish as the redirect target or authoritative URL?
For example, we have a series of duplicate pages on our site. Typically we choose the "cleanest" or shortest non-trailing-slash version of the URL as the canonical, but what if those pages are already established and have varying page authority/backlink profiles? The URLs are:
example.com/stores/locate/index?parameters=tags - PA = 54, Inbound Links = 259
example.com/stores/locate/index - PA = 60, Inbound Links = 302
example.com/stores/ - This is the version that currently ranks. PA = 42, Inbound Links = 3
example.com/stores - PA = 40, Inbound Links = 8
This might not really even matter, but in the interests of conserving as much SEO value as possible, which would you choose as either the 301 redirect target and/or the canonical version? My gut is to go with the URL that's already ranking (example.com/stores/) but curious if PA, backlinks, and trailing slashes should be considered also.
We of course would not 301 the URL with the tracking parameters.
Thanks for your help!
-
I like to keep the canonical neat so it looks better in the serps so as to encourage future users to click on it (people like clean, readable URLs), so I try not to use unnecessarily complex URLs. I have had very good luck in canonicalizing messy URLs with decent authority to new, completely non-ranking but clean, URLs and not only keeping but growing page authority.
And I have a fairly large site which is crawled regularly so I do value consistency--whichever page is set as the canonical will eventually become the ranking page, so current rank is not the biggest issue to me. In the long run, consistency will make your life (and the life of anyone who follows you in your present position) easier. (That being said, it wouldn't hurt anything if you prefer to use what is currently ranking.)
-
Thanks Linda! With regards to the trailing slash, typically we do set the non-trailing slash version as the canonical version across our site. So in this case, would you recommend that we stick with the non-trailing slash version for consistency's sake, even if it seems like it has lower SEO value?
Or would you go with the trailing slash version since it's the one currently ranking, and seems to have the more value; or even the longer URL with the highest PA/backlinks?
Thanks again!
-
In general, you will get the most links to a page via whatever URL is easiest for the linker to grab, so often it is not the prettiest, with parameters and such. But you really don't want that showing up in the serps, so don't use that as a canonical.
As far as the trailing slash/no slash issue, most people will use the no slash version if they are choosing how to add a link, even when the slash version would be more correct (as in your example) so you would also expect to see more links there.
But you mention that the slash version is the ranking version in your example. Is this mostly true throughout the site? (Maybe it is a Wordpress site that ends everything with slashes?) Then I'd stick with that. (I myself use the rule you first mentioned, the cleanest, non-slash version, but my site doesn't use trailing forward slashes.)
Do keep it consistent though. It would be a pain to always be checking pages to see what the canonical should be. The amount of SEO value you might lose is minimal.
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's the best way to keep track of keyword rankings
Here's the deal. I keep track of my keyword rankings with the help of Rank Tracker from seopowersuite.com for the most part. I ran it on a daily basis and my keyword was not in top 100 for a few months. Moz.com panel shows pretty much the same (not in top 50) for the same months. That said, if I check that keyword ranking in my Google Webmaster Tools (avg. position) it says that its position (ranking?) was on average: 49, 7, 7, 8 (for the last four months). So, I'm not sure how it's even possible? How come Rank Tracker and Moz don't see any rankings and Google gives me sorta decent avg. positions at the same time. I assume that avg. postion means that same as avg. ranking, right? I'm not sure what I'm missing here.
Moz Pro | | VinceWicks0 -
Overly Dynamic URLS
I should be able to set URL Parameters in my Google Webmasters Tool that allows be to stop my overly dynamic page URL problem. Please help me on how to do this.
Moz Pro | | pinksgreens0 -
On Link Analysis tab I my best pages are 301 and 404 pages.
I looked on my redirrect file and found that /* redirects to /v/404.asp.
Moz Pro | | sbetzen
However if you look below at the link analysis the 404 page is getting a 404 error.
The homepage ecowindchimes.com/ is getting a 301 (but I don't know where it is going to).
The third one is also redirected. 1. [No Data] ecowindchimes.com/ ||| 301 ||| 2 ||| 36 2. 2. [No Data] ecowindchimes.com/v/404.asp ||| 404 ||| 2 ||| 34 3. [No Data] 3. ecowindchimes.com/index.html?lang=en-us&target=d2.html ||| 301 ||| 1 ||| 33 So I have 2 questions: 1) should this be fixed? and 2) how? This is a volusion site and I believe the "catchall" redirect was done by them0 -
Why don't Google+ URL's work in OSE?
Is there any reason why Google+ URLs does not work in OSE? Is it just that it is a secure URL or is there something bigger there? Why? Be cool to determine every website the person has been published on; especially if it is rel="author" verified. Jeff
Moz Pro | | WebBizIdeas1 -
Crawl Errors from URL Parameter
Hello, I am having this issue within SEOmoz's Crawl Diagnosis report. There are a lot of crawl errors happening with pages associated with /login. I will see site.com/login?r=http://.... and have several duplicate content issues associated with those urls. Seeing this, I checked WMT to see if the Google crawler was showing this error as well. It wasn't. So what I ended doing was going to the robots.txt and disallowing rogerbot. It looks like this: User-agent: rogerbot Disallow:/login However, SEOmoz has crawled again and it still picking up on those URLs. Any ideas on how to fix? Thanks!
Moz Pro | | WrightIMC0 -
How best is it to use the on-page reports in seomoz?
how best is it to use the on-page reports in seomoz? Any help and techniques people use would be greatly appreciated thanks
Moz Pro | | Bristolweb0 -
Why are SEOmoz Pro Keyword Ranking reports different between two 301-linked URLs?
Hi, My main domain is www.dancenut.com. I have this 301 URL redirected to www.dancenut.com/boston/. I set up an SEOmoz Pro campaign for each of these URLs in order to see if they were being treated differently in any way. In most cases the report results are identical, or the small differences are understandable. However, there is one big difference between the two sets of campaign reports. In the Keyword Ranking reports, the data for the Bing and Yahoo! reports are identical, but the data for the Google reports are dramatically different. Out of 21 keywords, 9 are listed in the top 50 for www.dancenut.com, but only 2 are listed in the top 50 for www.dancenut.com/boston/ (the specific positions are the same for the 2 keywords that are listed for both). Does this make any sense? Could the SEOmoz Pro data be wrong? If not, then I'm suspicious that Google may not be interpreting the 301 redirect properly. I don't think this could be fully explained by a 1-10% reduction in link juice due to the 301 because I have one keyword for which my site ranks #1 in Google, Bing, and Yahoo! with www.dancenut.com, but it doesn't even rank in the top 50 in Google with www.dancenut.com/boston/. And why would these differences only exist for Google? Any insight would be much appreciated! Andrew
Moz Pro | | dancenut0 -
Canonical tags and SEOmoz crawls
Hi there. Recently, we've made some changes to http://www.gear-zone.co.uk/ to implement canonical tags to some dynamically generated pages to stop duplicate content issues. Previously, these were blocked with robots.txt. In Webmaster Tools, everything looks great - pages crawled has shot up, and overall traffic and sales has seen a positive increase. However the SEOmoz crawl report is now showing a huge increase in duplicate content issues. What I'd like to know is whether SEOmoz registers a canonical tag as preventing a piece of duplicate content, or just adds to it the notices report. That is, if I have 10 pages of duplicate content all with correct canonical tags, will I still see 10 errors in the crawl, but also 10 notices showing a canonical has been found? Or, should it be 0 duplicate content errors, but 10 notices of canonicals? I know it's a small point, but it could potentially have a big difference. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | neooptic0