Rel=Canonical vs. No Index
-
Ok, this is a long winded one. We're going to spell out what we've seen, then give a few questions to answer below, so please bear with us!
We have websites with products listed on them and are looking for guidance on whether to use rel=canonical or some version of No Index for our filtered product listing pages. We work with a couple different website providers and have seen both strategies used.
Right now, one of our web providers uses No Index, No Follow tags and Moz alerted us to the high frequency of these tags. We want to make sure our internal linking structure is sound and we are worried that blocking these filtered pages is keeping our product pages from being as relevant as they could be. We've seen recommendations to use No Index, Follow tags instead, but our other web provider uses a different method altogether.
Another vendor uses a rel=canonical strategy which we've also seen when researching Nike and Amazon's sites. Because these are industry leading sites, we're wondering if we should get rid of the No Index tags completely and switch to the canonical strategy for our internal links. On that same provider's sites, we've found rel=canonical tags used after the first page of our product listings, and we've seen recommendations to use rel=prev and rel=next instead.
With all that being said, we have three questions:
1)Which strategy (rel=canonical vs. No Index) do you recommend as being optimal for website crawlers and boosting our site relevance?
2)If we should be using some version of No Index, should we use Follow or No Follow?
2)Depending on the product, we have multiple pages of products for each category. Should we use rel=prev & rel=next instead of rel=canonical among the pages after page one?
Thanks in advance!
-
Oleg, I like your thought process on this.
I am dealing with this exact issue and have 2 brilliant minds arguing over what is best approach. In reviewing the above, I agree with the approach. Canonical links to the first page of "Honda-civic-coupe" makes perfect sense.
Total we use prev-next, but self-refer rel=canonical the URL's on subsequent pages, but are not no-indexing page 2+. The negative impact is that Google will from time to time, add as site-links to the #1 search result a pagination page (e.g., 6 ) and some pagination pages are indexed. Landing page traffic to these is near zero. Our decision is determining whether to non-index or rel-canonical to the first page.
The pages in my case are new home communities where we might be listing all the different communities that are luxury communities in the specific city. While they are all this same category, as a group can be described similarly, and will have near duplicate metas, each community (list element) is unique. So, page #1 can be viewed as quite differentiated.
Here are the arguments:
-
Rel=canonical to the first page. As much as we think each shingle (i.e., page of 15 communities) is unique. The 15 Descriptions, amenities, location, what it is near, things you can do there are unique, As a group it can be considered just a list of communities. By pointing back to page #1 we are saying this is a collecting list of 3 pages of luxury communities in a given city. This will concentrate authority to the page that is most relevant.
-
No-index the subsequent pages. When Google said near duplicate, they really were considering limiting that scope to pages where the items are exactly the same or nearly the same. If the individual page content due to the differentiated product can be seen as unique content simply due to the in-page list elements, they are not really duplicate and rel=canonical is inappropriate. To use rel=canonical would at some point be viewed as manipulative and over-reaching use of rel=canonical. While this may cause this page to rank better, it may be considered not okay at some point.
Option #1 would seem to have a better immediate rank impact, but is there some real risk that it would be considered manipulative since the pages would not look to Google as near enough duplicates?
Glad to hear what you or others have to say.
-
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the input - we'll look into making those updates!
-
Yes, you would canonical to that searchnew.aspx page.
In this scenario, I would set up mod_rewrite to create "Category" page for each specific model so you can rank for more pages.
e.g /model/Honda-Civic-Coupe/ would be a static page and you can canonical all of the other filters to their respective pages.
-
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for the answers and advice - here's an example of a filtered inventory listings page on one of our sites that isn't currently using a rel=canonical on it. Would you just have the canonical point back to the main "searchnew" page? If you have any other insights to improvements to this page's structure, please feel free to send suggestions.
http://www.leithhonda.com/searchnew.aspx?model=Civic+Coupe
Thanks all!
-
I would say using rel canonical would be the best. I am guessing your filter system is using a anchor or a hashbang? We only do ecommerce work and we typically just have the canonical of the filter page pointed to the category that is being filtered. The reason being is that you don't want to reduce the chances of the category ranking in the serps.
But honestly like Oleg said, the site would need to be seen to give a 100% best possible answer. We have used several different strategies with our clients. Some involve actually rewriting the filter urls as landing pages and trying to rank them as well.
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the response. We're actually looking for info on our product listings pages, or search results pages within the site. Would this advice still apply to those pages?
-
Hard to give answer without seeing the site... ideally, you don't use canonicals or noindex and instead have 1 page per product.
-
Canonical is better overall i'd say - as long as the two pages you are merging are (almost) identical
-
keep the follow, doesn't hurt and only boosts pages it links to
-
Again, tough to understand but sounds like you should use canonical (pagination basically "merges" the paginated pages into 1 long one so to speak, so if you have the same content over and over again, best to canonical)
-
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
-
Sudden Drop in Index Status on GSC
Hi all, We've seen a sudden drop in index status on GSC from 19,000 to 12,000. Rankings, referring domains, organic traffic etc. have not changed. However, we have implemented a huge number of redirects and done a site migration from http to https in the past year. Could this have an effect? Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | SMVSEO0 -
Why google stubbornly keeps indexing my http urls instead of the https ones?
I moved everything to https in November, but there are plenty of pages which are still indexed by google as http instead of https, and I am wondering why. Example: http://www.gomme-auto.it/pneumatici/barum correctly redirect permanently to https://www.gomme-auto.it/pneumatici/barum Nevertheless if you search for pneumatici barum: https://www.google.it/search?q=pneumatici+barum&oq=pneumatici+barum The third organic result listed is still http. Since we moved to https google crawler visited that page tens of time, last one two days ago. But doesn't seems to care to update the protocol in google index. Anyone knows why? My concern is when I use API like semrush and ahrefs I have to do it twice to try both http and https, for a total of around 65k urls I waste a lot of my quota.
Reporting & Analytics | | max.favilli0 -
Google webmaster links vs Moz Reporte do follow links
A bit confused about my seo reports for a site I am tracking in Moz. Google webmaster reports i have 1836 links to my domain.
Reporting & Analytics | | KenW
Moz reports 273 external followed links.
Website Auditor reports 449 dofollow and 338 no follow.> total 787
What is important factor that I should be reporting to my client that really matters?0 -
Homepage disappeared from Google's index
The Title says it all..I just discovered that the Homepage is not in Google's index anymore. Homepage rankings have plummeted, our top keywords are nowhere to be found but most of keywords from deeper pages have dropped just one or two places. We just change the website design and some content but I strongly believe this is definitely something else due to the fact that it all happened so fast! There is one thing that I have to mention that might have been caused all this..our email client (Outlook) is using a lot of resources from our server and for the last couple of days the website was down quite a lot.
Reporting & Analytics | | echo1
There are some crawling errors in GWT but the homepage has been crawled because is not there, no other messages. Where should I look for?0 -
Show item status in GA - LIve vs sold vs unsold
Hi guys, I am working with SEO for an auction site with B2C and C2C. (similar to eBay) All item\products on our page have an unique url. The auction can last from hours to weeks.
Reporting & Analytics | | helgeolaussen
When the item is live, sold or (finished but)unsold it still has the same url.
So when I take a look at SEO traffic to items in Google Analytics, I can't tell if the item was live, sold or unsold at the time the user landed on the page. Which makes it diffucult to analyse the traffic. Is there anyway I can make GA show the status of the item for the time user landed on it? Best regards, Ceran0 -
Why is Google Analytics showing index.php after every page URL?
Hi, My client's site has GA tracking code gathering correct data on the site, but the pages are listed in GA as having /index.php at the end of every URL, although this does not appear when you visit the site pages. Even if there is a redirect happening for site visitors, shouldn't GA be showing the pages as their redirect destination, i.e. the URL that visitors actually see? Could this discrepancy be adversely affecting my search performance? Example page: http://freshstarttax.com/innocent-spouse/ shows up in GA as http://freshstarttax.com/innocent-spouse/index.php thanks
Reporting & Analytics | | JMagary0 -
Why do I have few different index URL addresses?
Yes I know, sorry guys but I also have a problem with duplicate pages. It shows that almost every page of my site has a duplicate content issue and looking at my folders in the server, I don't see all these pages... This is a static Website with no shopping cart or anything fancy. The first on the list is my [index] page and this is giving me a hint about some sort of bad settings on my end with the SEOMOZ crawler??? Please advice and thank you! index-variations.jpg
Reporting & Analytics | | cssyes0 -
Conflicting Analytics: Getclicky vs. Google Analytics
Removal of an old getclicky code (and installation of new tracking code) from my site after some changes resolved inaccuracies in my page view/bounce rate information. Prior to adding the correct getclicky code, getclicky was showing 95% plus bounce rate on my site. I knew this was wrong because GA showed around 40%. Ironically, now that my getclicky account is working (showing a 30% bounce rate), GA bounce rate is steadily climbing. Is it best to just stick with one analytics account so that the codes don't conflict? Is it possible to have two accurate analytics accounts at the same time?
Reporting & Analytics | | JSOC0