301 to canonical
-
I'm doing some work on a website, they have a very popular product search where you enter a specific part code (6 digits) and it takes you to the product. So for example
Search: 123456
Page redirected to domain.com/product/123456
With a canonical of domain.com/product/this-is-the-product-title
Would it be beneficial to redirect from /product/123456 to /product/this-is-the-product-title
Google seems to be indexing both versions. For some of these products a reasonable amount of links are built.
-
No prob, let me know how things turn out (professional curiosity)
Like yourself my main project is dated in areas and a workaround is more cost effective than a rebuild, always interesting to see how people get around issues.
GL!
-
The 123456 url is only used in once place (or on banners in various places) any time this is in a category it is using the canonical url, once stock is loaded it only takes an hour for this to pull through. So the mass of links to this is the canonical url (however it usually has some form of tracking attached to it)
It's a very large and dated website, so we've got to try and get workarounds until development get round to sorting this kind of thing.
The mass of urls are showing as the canonicals, we've just got a few (hundreds) that aren't playing ball.
Really appreciate your help.
-
Sorry just want to check i understand this,
The product is originally created as domain.com/123456.html and is utilised at this url for a period of time.
You get the canonical url of domain.com/product-title.html later the day the product goes live.
You then create the canonical url and insert the canonical tags at a later time?
If all these are correct then it could explain why your having issues.
Google will crawl and index 123456.html pretty quickly, if this is the base url the product is created at you will most likely find that the links off your category pages use this url and any initial links use this url, this is bad for what you are trying to achieve.
When you then change to the canonical you create a situation where you have 2 copies of the page. 1 with loads of links pointing to it, especially internally, and another with no links. But your trying to tell google that the one with no links is the main version. I would bet this is why it is indexing both.
Even if you change all of the links and add the correct canonical tag it can take time for google to change, even then it can choose to ignore it (it can be frustrating).
Ideally you want to create the canonical URL first or at the same time as the 123456.html url and instantly add all the canonical tags, this way that all default links that a created internally point to it, and the first time it gets crawled it is already pointing to the canonical url.
In your current timetable, I would say redirects would be more suitable than canonical for both the order you release them and the general use.
About your plan,
If your timings are correct, then sure, that doesn't sound like too much of a time commitment and i think the benefit would be worth it. What I would expect to see within the month is the de-indexing of all the 123456.html versions
**Just remember, check all your canonicals actually need a 301 before doing them on bulk. You may have places on your site that you have canonicals because both versions of a page are needed, don't redirect these in your haste
-
Thank you for your response ATP.
I've done numerous checks and we're following all of the best practices, the only thing I can think of is that this url is the first that's seen (we only release stock on a time due to the nature of the business, we then only get the canonical on that day) so any scheduled work uses the part code, which we then at a later date manually change to the canonical url.
We are always trying to get these links changed to the correct version, however as we have a large site (570k+ pages) crawling for these is always an issue.
We can quite comfortably get a list of the canonicals thanks to screaming frog and being able to export our product codes (which are these six digit numbers). So you think it would be a viable solution to bulk upload our whole product catalog and on the /product/123456 urls redirecting to the /product/product-title and we should see a benefit from this? (Would take about an hours work initially then just adding current urls being 5 minutes a day)
-
Hi Thomas,
Firstly, the canonical does the same job as the 301 (for all intensive purposes) without the physical redirect. So in theory only the canonical should be being indexed and all the link juice should be being passed.
The fact that both are indexed suggests that the canonical isn't behaving as intended
- I would check for common cannonical errors to begin with
- If this isn't the case, i would suggest that the 123456 version has too many links maybe internally and externally and that google is ignoring the canonical because it has too much authority.
An issue with using canonical like this is that people who use the search are not sent to the main canonical url. This gives people the opportunity to copy and link to the wrong version of the url, which isn't a practice you want.
A possible solution would be to find all backlinks and get them changed to the main canonical version internally and externally, this could be a lot of work.
The 301 redirect is better in my opinion because it achieves the following
- Customer always see a useful URL and the main canonical URL
- Because of this, links will only likely be built the the url you want
- Google will de-index the 123456 version because it becomes inaccessible
However, unless you can automate this procedure, it can take too much time to create all those 301's for every product.
Personally i use the following guidlines as i find it keeps things clean and tidy
301 any url that isn't domain.com/main-product-url.html
keep the canonical on domain.com/main-product-url.html so that any version created from filtering or unexpected cms pages dont create duplicate content.
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
-
Canonical tags in the body?
Hi there, Does anyone know if placing canonical tags in the body instead of the header of a page will still "take"? The system we are on means that making an editable header is no easy business and I was just wondering how big of a difference it makes to have it in a different area. Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | Whittie0 -
Using Canonical & INDEX, FOLLOW meta tag
I am sort of new to this, and working with an overseas development team on an eCommerce site. I am curious if the Canonical tag will supersede the tag, or if it is best to remove this tag entirely for duplicate product pages?
On-Page Optimization | | BretDarby1 -
Trying to maintain rank while switching back & forth from sitewide 301 to 302 redirects?
My company's website has earned industry "authority" over the years and ranks well for a number of keywords. For reasons not worth explaining, we've moved the entire site (all pages) to be secured (https from http). When we launch our completely new website in 5 months from now, we will launch it as "http:" For the next 5 months, we're stuck with using site-wide "https". Is it better to 301 or 302 all pages (from http -> https), with the intent to move back to 301 in 5 months from now? Obviously, this situation is not ideal, but we'd like to preserve as much authority/presence as possible. What should we do and why? Any input would be greatly appreciated!
On-Page Optimization | | WhiteCap0 -
Canonical Tag for Ecommerce Site
My client has an ecommerce site with over 1,000 products. We have a ton of duplicates because of how their ecommerce system handles product pages. Each time a new product is added, there is a default product page created (/product/12345-product-name.aspx). Each time that product is added to a specific product category, another, separate URL is created (/product/office-chairs/12345-product-name.aspx). The site has over 1,000 duplicates (at least one for each product) because of how the ecommerce system structures URLs. We are unable to have unique content on /products/12345-product-name.aspx and /product/office-chairs/12345-product-name.aspx because both pages pull from the same database. Their webteam informed me that they can't implement canonical tags on individual pages, they must be dynamically added to the site all at once. Thus forcing me to choose all of the default product pages as primary URLs. Both types of URLs are getting indexed and the product URLs that were added to the categories are SEO friendly so I'm leary to eliminate one or the other with a canonical tag or a no index. Suggestions?
On-Page Optimization | | DynoSaur0 -
Help I don't understand Rel Canonical
I'm really stuck on how to fix up Rel Canonical errors on a Wordpress site. I went in and changed all the URLs to remove the www and added / to the end. I get this message on page analysis details: <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://www.some-url.com.au/",</dd> <dd>"http://some-url..com.au/", and</dd> <dd>"http://some-url..com.au/"</dd> <dd>Well the first one with the www doesn't exists and the second two urls are the same! (Note that I have removed the actual URL for this post)</dd> <dd>I'm not sure how to read and fix the errors from the reports ether. The only issues I can see is that the 'Tag Value' has the www and the 'Page Title - URL' doesn't have the www.
On-Page Optimization | | zapprabbit
</dd>0 -
Canonical to the page itself?
Hello, I'd like to know what happens when you use canonical to the same page itself, like: Page "example.com" rel canonical="example.com" Does that impact in something? Bad or good? See ya!
On-Page Optimization | | seomasterbrasil1 -
301 internal redirects
Hello, I have a lot of low quality pages on my site, many of which have very similar URLs and cover similar topics. I want to tidy up my site by using 301 redirects as Rand suggests here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-solve-keyword-cannibalization 1. As a rough rule of thumb, how many internal 301 redirects is too many? 2. Can lots be to the homepage if they're relevant? (I could have as many as 30) Thanks, Kevin
On-Page Optimization | | KMack0 -
301 redirect and then keywords in URL
Hi, Matt Cutts says that 301 redirects, including the ones on internal pages, causes the loss of a little bit of link juice. But also, I know that keywords in the URL are very important. On our site, we've got unoptimized URLs (few keywords) in the internal pages. Is it worth doing a 301 redirect in order to optimize the URLs for each main page. 301 redirects are the only way we can do it on our premade cart For example (just an example) say our main (1 of the 4) keywords for the page is "brown shoes". I'm wondering if I should redirect something like shoes.com/shoecolors.html to shoes.com/brown-shoes.html In other words, with the loss of juice would we come out ahead? In what instances would we come out ahead?
On-Page Optimization | | BobGW0