Canonical URL availability
-
Hi
We have a website selling cellphones. They are available in different colors and with various data capacity, which slightly changes the URL.
For instance:
- Black iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html
- White iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,16,000000000010204783).html
- White iphone, 24GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,24,000000000010204783).html
Now, the canonical URL indicates a standard URL:
But this URL is never physically available. Instead, a user gets 301 redirected to one of the above URLs. Is this a problem? Does a URL have to be "physically" available if it is indicated as canonical?
-
Thanks Dirk for your great in-depth response!
I will now check with developers what the estimated effort would be. Making the canonical URL available will let me sleep better at night before releasing the new site version.
I think the risk shouldn't be huge if we cannot do this and will not waste too many ressources on this (unless, of course, we see a negative impact, which I will then report here;)Best,
Phil -
With a 301 you communicate that the requested resource is no longer available (The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs- source: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html)
If you look at the definition of a canonical url - it indicates the preferred URL to use, so that the search results will be more likely to show users that URL structure. (Google attempts to respect this, but cannot guarantee this in all cases.)
So basically what you are telling to Google:
On your site you ask Google not to index site.com/A.htm - but rather to index url site.com/B.htm
On the url site.com/B.htm you put a 301 to site.com/C.htm - in other words force Google to index C.htm rather than B.htm (the 301 indicates that the page has permanently moved to a new location - so is no longer available on B.htm)So in fact - you ask Google not to index A.htm but C.htm instead. Rather than doing this in a complicated 2step process using both canonical & redirect it would be simpler & make more sense to directly put a canonical url on A.htm with C.htm as canonical.
In your case you could create www.site.com/iphone but if it's identical to www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html I don't think you will gain a lot (especially if it requires a lot of development)
rgds,
Dirk
-
Thank you Dirk!
I did look at the article you pointed out, but could not initially find that information:
"Double-check that your rel=canonical target exists (it’s not an error or “soft 404”)"However, for me this is not 100% conclusive. The page does exist, in a way, but it's redirected. I know that to be on the safe side, we should better make it available. But as it would mean a lot of additional programming effort, I am trying to find out if it really is necessary. Thats' why I was hoping someone already has some experience with this...
-
Normally a canonical url should be physically available - see also: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
With a canonical you indicate the Search engines which page you want to have listed in the SERP's. A page which is 301'd to another page will never get listed in the results.
In your case - it's probably better to use the url where your are redirecting to as canonical - or to create a page www.site.com/iphone that is not redirected
rgds,
Dirk
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 would cause these ⠃︲蝞韤諫䴴SPপ� emblems in my urls?
In Search Console I am getting errors under other. It is showing urls that have this format- https://www.site.com/Item/654321~SURE⠃︲蝞韤諫䴴SPপ�.htm When clicked it shows 蝞韤諫䴴SPপ� instead of the % stuff. As you can see this is an item page and the normal item page pulls up fine with no issues. This doesn't show it is linked from anywhere. Why would google pull this url? It doesn't exist on the site anywhere. It is a custom asp.net site. This started happening in mid May but we didn't make any changes then.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Canonical URL Tag
I have 3 websites with same content, I want to add Canonical tag to my main website. Is this also important to mentioned other duplicate URL in canonical tag in main website? or just need to just add
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marknorman0 -
Canonical tags required when redirecting?
Hello, My client bought a new domain and he wants it to be the main domain of his company. His current domain though has been online for 10 years and ranks pretty well on a few keywords. I feel it is necessary to redirect the old domain to the new one to take advantage of its ranking and avoid any broken links. The sites are exactly the same. Same sections and same content. Is it necessary to place canonical tags on one of the sites to avoid duplicate content/sites? Any thoughts? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eblan0 -
More Indexed Pages than URLs on site.
According to webmaster tools, the number of pages indexed by Google on my site doubled yesterday (gone from 150K to 450K). Usually I would be jumping for joy but now I have more indexed pages than actual pages on my site. I have checked for duplicate URLs pointing to the same product page but can't see any, pagination in category pages doesn't seem to be indexed nor does parameterisation in URLs from advanced filtration. Using the site: operator we get a different result on google.com (450K) to google.co.uk (150K). Anyone got any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DavidLenehan0 -
Indexed non existent pages, problem appeared after we 301d the url/index to the url.
I recently read that if a site has 2 pages that are live such as: http://www.url.com/index and http://www.url.com/ will come up as duplicate if they are both live... I read that it's best to 301 redirect the http://www.url.com/index and http://www.url.com/. I read that this helps avoid duplicate content and keep all the link juice on one page. We did the 301 for one of our clients and we got about 20,000 errors that did not exist. The errors are of pages that are indexed but do not exist on the server. We are assuming that these indexed (nonexistent) pages are somehow linked to the http://www.url.com/index The links are showing 200 OK. We took off the 301 redirect from the http://www.url.com/index page however now we still have 2 exaact pages, www.url.com/index and http://www.url.com/. What is the best way to solve this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bryan_Loconto0 -
Canonical referencing and aspx
The following pages of my website all end up at the same place:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IPROdigital
http://example.com/seo/Default.aspx
http://example.com/SEO/
http://example.com/seo
http://example.com/sEo
http://example.com/SeO but we have a really messy URL structure throughout the website. I would like to have a neat URL structure, including for offline marketing so customers can easily memorize or even guess the URL. I'm thinking of duplicating the pages and canonical referencing the original ones with the messy URLs instead of a 301 redirect (done for each individual page of course), because the latter will likely result in a traffic drop. We've got tens of thousands of URLs; some active and some inactive. Bearing in mind that thousands of links already point in to the site and even a small percentage drop in traffic would be a serious problem given low industry margins and high marketing spend, I'd love to hear opinions of people who have encountered this issue and found it problematic or successful. @randfish to the rescue. I hope.0 -
Canonical URL's - Do they need to be on the "pointed at" page?
My understanding is that they are only required on the "pointing pages" however I've recently heard otherwise.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DPSSeomonkey0 -
New AddThis URL Sharing
So, AddThis just added a cool feature that attempts to track when people share URL's via cutting and pasting the address from the browser. It appears to do so by adding a URL fragment on the end of the URL, hoping that the person sharing will cut and paste the entire thing. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Unless I misunderstand, it seems like it will add a fragment to every URL (since it's trying to track all of 'em). Probably not a huge issue for the search engines when they crawl, as they'll, hopefully, discard the fragment, or discard the JS that appends the fragment. But what about backlinks? Natural backlinks that someone might post to say, their blog, by doing exactly what AddThis is attempting to track - cutting and pasting the link. What are people's thoughts on what will happen when this occurs, and the search engines crawl that link, fragment included?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BedeFahey0