Rel=canonical vs noindex/follow - tabs with individual URLs
-
Hi everyone
I've got a situation that I haven't seen in quite this way before. I would like some advice on whether I should be rel=canonicalzing of noindexing/following a range of pages on a clients website.
I've just started working on a website that creates individual URLs for tabs within each page which has resulted in several URLs being created for each listing:
Example URLs:
- hotel-downtown-calgary
- hotel-downtown-calgary/gallery?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/map?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/facilities?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/in-the-area?tab
Google has indexed over 1500 pages with the "?tab" parameter (there are 4380 page indexed for the site in total), and also seems to be indexing some of these pages without the "?tab" parameter i.e. ("hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews" instead of "hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab") so the amount of potential duplication could be more. These tabbed pages are getting minimal traffic from organic search, so I've got no issues with taking them out of the index - the question is how.
There are the issues I see:
- Each tab has the same title as the other tabs for each location, so lots of title duplication.
- Each individual tab doesn't have much content (although the content each tab has is unique).
I would usually expect the tabs to be distinguished by the parameters only, not have unique URLs - if that was the case we wouldn't have a duplication issue.
So the question is: rel=canonical or noindex/follow? I can see benefits of both.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
-
Well, you are on the right path with thinking on how to reduce the amount of unneeded pages.
Here is how I would approach it.
-
Check the query volume levels on those specific queries "Map to XXX"
-
Check the search volume on those pages.
See if you can detect a pattern that there is search volume to justify those searches, do they result in significant traffic to those pages. Then try and determine, what is the content on all those separate pages and is it any good? Are they making extra pages to make extra pages? Sure, in theory you could do a page per query, but I would bet if they have a ton of hotel, all the info on those pages is a bunch of boilerplate crap copied from somewhere else. Even if the search volume was there, do they have a good enough page with good content to rank for it?
Now that we have hummingbird type algos in Google, it reduces the need to get so specific for matching on queries on a page by page basis. Build a single, awesome, page that is really helpful to users and has original content, that is how you win for the big queries and then fill in for the rest. You can then use the title, description and H1, H2 headings to show the important information.
Remember that the rel=canonical will help Google understand what your main page is and what your secondary/duplicate pages are in this specific case, but I am not sure that Google would see it as the consolidated awesome single page.
Rel=canonical is more for showing how the parts are just parts of a whole page that is already there, it is more to help clean up duplicate content
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
As I read your post originally, this seemed to be more of the issue. This was why I was encouraging you to take the content in the tab (that did not seem substantial) and put it on the main page and use the canonical or if the content was junk then it did not matter as much.
Hope that makes sense.
-
-
Hello CleverPHD!
Thank you very much for your response - that really clears a few things up. Most info around rel=canonical revolves around duplicate content so I just wanted to make sure!
Regarding your separate question, your assumption is correct, each hotel on the site is set up this way (and there are hundreds of them) which is why I am concerned.
I've just come into this project but I assume that the initial thinking was going to be that they wanted to rank for a range of search terms around the hotel i.e. "Xxx Hotel reviews", "map to Xxx Hotel" etc and thought that dedicated pages for each term would help them.
What I am hoping is that by rel=canonicaling these pages to the main Hotel URL we will in effect be creating the "really awesome" page you refer to, while avoiding any potential penalties!
Once again, thanks for your in depth response - it's very much appreciated!
-
The rel=canonical is what you need to do right now to help fix this. Google has already indexed all of those tabbed pages and you need to make sure that Google knows that they are subsections of the main page and how it all fits together. The canonical is treated like a 301 redirect. Doing that should take care of the extra pages indexed. If you can 301 those tabbed pages that would be a good option as well, not a good option if you do not want to lose the content on those tabbed pages though.
Right now, I would not use no-follow on links or no-index meta tags on the tabbed pages. If you use no-follow, you are telling Google to not follow that tab link and so it is not able to crawl over the the tabbed page and see the canonical link. Second, if you have a noindex meta on that tabbed page, it tells Google to take the page out of the index and would probably conflict with the canonical link as well.
The only way you would want to use no-follow or noindex meta tags or blocking in robots.txt is if 1) the content is not worth indexing and/or ranking and or 2) it is not in the index already and you want to keep Google out of this stuff.
Ultimately, I would try and get the stuff on the tabbed sections onto the main page and then use the noindex meta tag on the tabbed pages so that you can get rid of the tabbed pages all together and not work about losing the content that is in the tabbed section. If you can do that, it would be a better approach than the canonical option, but it looks like you may not have that option at this time. All those extra tab pages are just wasting Google's time crawling pages that do not matter (most likely).
If you did not care about the content on the tabbed pages, I would just 410 them right now and get rid of the links to the tabs on the main pages.
Hope the above makes sense, tried to answer the "it depends" scenarios.
Feel free to ignore this next part, but I have a separate question if you drop the whole tab pages issue and look at this at a higher level. Looking at this subsection of URLs from above
- hotel-downtown-calgary
- hotel-downtown-calgary/gallery
- hotel-downtown-calgary/map
- hotel-downtown-calgary/facilities
- hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews
- hotel-downtown-calgary/in-the-area
Would not all the above pages really need to be about a single hotel or a category page on all the hotels in downtown calgary? Unless you have enough search query volume to support a separate page for each of them, seems like if you put the content on all the pages listed above into a single page, you would have a really awesome page about either a specific downtown calgary hotel or all the hotels in downtown calgary.
-
Thanks for that Dana - appreciated.
At the moment it is currently set to Let Googlebot decide and I need admin access to look under the hood which I don't have, so I'll have a look when I gain administrator access. I can see one potential issue through - some of their landing pages don't exist without the "?tab" parameter which I think might make this a non starter unfortunately.
Given the possibility that this method doesn't work, does anyone else have any thoughts on rel=canonical vs noindex in this situation?
-
Hi Damon,
I believe there may be a third option. In Google Search Console, there is the option to tell Googlebot not to crawl and index URLs containing certain parameters. In this case, it seems like it would be easiest to indicated to Googlebot that anything with the ?tab parameter should be excluded from crawling and indexing.
You can find this in Google Search Console by navigating to "Crawl" and then "URL Parameters," then click "Configure URL Parameters" and Google will show you a list of potential candidates for exclusion.
Hope that's helpful...it's my understanding that Yahoo/Bing have something similar but I've never used those.
Cheers,
Dana
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
-
ASP Canonical and Internal Linking
Hello - I'm working with a large ASP website and trying to troubleshoot issues I believe might be related to how the canonical element is used. On page - all internal links, including navigation links, use the following format (uppercase) - website.com**/F**older/Folder/Product . So, any page navigated to will always display the uppercase version of the URL. And, all of these pages have the canonical tag pointing to the lowercase version of the URL. The pages included in Google's index are all lowercase versions of the URL like this - website.com**/f**older/folder/product . My concern is that a lot of internal authority flow is being impacted/negated because all internal links point to the uppercase versions of URLs and all those pages reference the lowercase version URL in the canonical reference. Is this a valid concern?
On-Page Optimization | | LA_Steve0 -
Strange URL resulting a page
Hi, my friend has asked me to take a look at his site. I only know the basics of SEO so I'm learning along the way. He has some duplicate title errors showing in Moz, resulting to this page: https://www.domainname.com/about/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers/money-transfers This URL shows the 'About' page. I have tonnes of pages like this showing with really long URLs that result an actual page. Has anyone seen something like this before? I don't have a clue how this is showing the about page Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks James
On-Page Optimization | | Craze_Media0 -
Www.colourbanners.co.uk/ & colourbanners.co.uk showing up as two seperate URLs - is this going to be dupliacte content issue?
Hi Guys, I have just created a report in Moz and there appears to be 91 duplicate content issues with the site which i need to fix as i think it could be the reason why we are suffering from a penalty. One of the main questions i have is these 3 variations of the URL http://www.colourbanners.co.uk/ http://colourbanners.co.ukhttp://colourbanners.co.uk/Each have links pointing to them. My question is, could this be causing a dupe issue?regardsGerry
On-Page Optimization | | gezzagregz0 -
Canonical Question For Different Languages
My client has a site that supports different languages in the following structure: www.domain.com - English version www.domain.com/IT - Italian version www.domain/DE - German version etc.... I have set the languages up within Webmaster Tools but do I need to set up the canonical tag for all internal pages as they are basically the same but just in a different language i.e. www.domain.com/index.php is the same as www.domain.com/DE/index.php but in a different language. Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | bigfootdigital0 -
Noindex or canonical tag for products which have no unique product description?
I have several ecommerce sites in the same niche and there are a high number of products shared among these sites. I understand that having unique product descriptions for each site may be ideal, but for several reasons this is not an option for the short term. Sales-wise it would be useful to continue products on several sites at the same time. Also it would not be a problem if only the product pages of our main store would show up in the google index. I thought about adding noindex xrobots tag to avoid that product pages are indexed in more than one store to avoid issues with duplicated or thin content or would you implement canonical tag here? What would you suggest?
On-Page Optimization | | lcourse0 -
Importance of URL Structure
We are trying to restructure our onpage SEO and want to make sure we have our URLs correct. The problem is we did the URLs incorrectly in the first place and the ones we currently have are several years olds. We have some URLs such as: http://www.firebrandtraining.co.uk/courses/management/prince2.asp and
On-Page Optimization | | RobertChapman
http://www.firebrandtraining.co.uk/courses/cisco/ccna_2007.asp which are not ideal but user experience aside does it make sense for us to change the URLs and use 301 redirects to the new ones or is the damage done to our natural rankings simply not worth making the change? I have read different articles saying different things, some say that URL structure has little weight (if any weight at all) on rankings while other people seem to say it is quite important. In addition we have heard that changing the URLs with a 301 redirect will cause a large drop in ranking which will take months to recover from and contrarily that 301s are now considered "ok" by Google and we shouldn't see too much change at all in our rankings. Any advice would be much appreciated.0 -
Brand Name URL Redirecting to Actual URL
So we have already built a site under a parent company's URL: parentcompany.com And now we have their branded product lines in directories: parentcompany.com/brand-name1, and parentcompany.com/brand-name2 We also own the actual URL Brand Name 1 (which is also the exact description of the product): brandname1.com We do not yet own the URL for Brand Name 2 (which is also the exact description of the product): brandname2.com. This is because a squatter is sitting on it and is asking $10,000+ for it. What we are trying to determine is how valuable these brand name URLs are since they will be redirecting and not the actual site's primary domain name. Anybody know how much of an effect owning those and redirecting has on ranking for those brand names that are also very descriptive of the products? Would we be smarter to spend $10,000 on adwords or 10,000 on the domain? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | grayloon1 -
URL question
Hi guys, the pro campaign thing you got going is wicked, love it. I'm recieving good results with my keywords and have noticed that categories that go beyond sub/sub/sub don't do to well. So I wanna move those that do one step up which makes it go from: http://spytunes.com/practice-guitar/advanced-routine/scales/aeolian to here http://spytunes.com/practice-guitar/advanced-routine/aeolian The existing menu system that follow all these categories across the site will soon go so it won't be a user friendly problem, I will have other type of menus. But, and here is the question: Would I greatly benefit from taking the non existent menu away and just go for: http://spytunes.com/practice-guitar/aeolian while i'm at it? Or do I stick with my current structure? I guess my real question is; how much is there to flat URLs? Cheers -dan lundholm spytunes.com
On-Page Optimization | | spytunes0