Change URL or use Canonicals and Redirects?
-
We just completed a conclusive a/b test on a client's landing page. The new page saw a 30% bump in conversions, yay!
Now what?
Option 1: Change the url of the new page to that of the old page, retire the old page.
Option 2: Redirect the old page and anything that was pointing to it to the new page, make the new page the canonical.
I'm afraid of option 1 because I think Google's WTF penalty will be a bit harsher than option 2, but I wanted to sanity check that here.
Any thoughts or experienced advice would be very appreciated!
-
I knew it that sounded like a Google A/B test protocol!
A good rule of thumb is to avoid changing URLs unless it's absolutely necessary. There's a lot going on with that URL in the background that Google knows about....internal and external links as I mentioned above, but also XML sitemaps and usage metrics. You don't want to point them elsewhere and have them re-learn a new URL structure and step through a redirect just to get there.
Google has put more emphasis on UX in the last couple years, so improving the usability of this page, as you've done by A/B testing, is likely to benefit you in the long run.
-
Thanks. We did use Google Experiments, so your advice is very helpful.
Am I crazy in thinking that shifting a completely new page to an old and trusted URL is not going to hurt rankings a bit?
-
Hi,
You definitely want to avoid redirects where possible, so scratch option number 2. Redirection causes you to lose about 10% of the authority that page has built up. Google tends to prefer pages that they have known about for a while.
If you were to do option 2, you'd also have to update all of your internal links to point to the new page, as well as outreach to any external linking sites to have them update.
All you need to do is take the source code for the variation page and make it the source code for the original.
It sounds like you may have used Google Content Experiments. If that's the case, the additional URL created for your variation doesn't need to be excluded from crawls or disallowed, Google knows it's there and there's no other way to get to it other than the code snippet they utilize to send your sample to the variation.
-
Hi,
So if I understand correctly you AB tested with two pages (for example: domain.com/page and domain.com/testpage) and both were indexed by Google? If yes, than option 2 as you mentioned is the best way to go here.
For the future I would recommend to make sure that the testpage is not indexed by Google via robots.txt/meta noindex or use the rel canonical tag. You don’t want the testpage to get organic traffic here to prevent issues.
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
-
301 Redirects, Sitemaps and Indexing - How to hide redirected urls from search engines?
We have several pages in our site like this one, http://www.spectralink.com/solutions, which redirect to deeper page, http://www.spectralink.com/solutions/work-smarter-not-harder. Both urls are listed in the sitemap and both pages are being indexed. Should we remove those redirecting pages from the site map? Should we prevent the redirecting url from being indexed? If so, what's the best way to do that?
Technical SEO | | HeroDesignStudio0 -
If you use canonicals do the meta descriptions need to be different?
For example, we have 3 different subsites with the same pages. We will put canonicals so they reference the main pages. Do the meta descriptions have to be different for each of the three pages? How does Google handle meta data when using canonicals?
Technical SEO | | Shirley.Fenlason0 -
Should you use google url remover if older indexed pages are still being kept?
Hello, A client recently did a redesign a few months ago, resulting in 700 pages being reduced to 60, mostly due to panda penalty and just low interest in products on those pages. Now google is still indexing a good number of them ( around 650 ) when we only have 70 on our sitemap. Thing is google indexes our site on average now for 115 urls when we only have 60 urls that need indexing and only 70 on our sitemap. I would of thought these urls would be crawled and not found, but is taking a very long period of time. Our rankings haven't recovered as much as we'd hope, and we believe that the indexed older pages are causes this. Would you agree and also would you think removing those old urls via the remover tool would be best option? It would mean using the url remover tool for 650 pages. Thank you in advance
Technical SEO | | Deacyde0 -
Redirect URLS with 301 twice
Hello, I had asked my client to ask her web developer to move to a more simplified URL structure. There was a folder called "home" after the root which served no purpose. I asked for the URLs to be redirected using 301 to the new URLs which did not have this structure. However, the web developer didn't agree and decided to just rename the "home" folder "p". I don't know why he did this. We argued the case and he then created the URL structure we wanted. Initially he had 301 redirected the old URLS (the one with "Home") to his new version (the one with the "p"). When we asked for the more simplified URL after arguing, he just redirected all the "p" URLS to the PAGE NOT FOUND. However, remember, all the original URLs are now being redirected to the PAGE NOT FOUND as a result. The problems I see are these unless he redirects again: The new simplified URLS have to start from scratch to rank 2)We have duplicated content - two URLs with the same content Customers clicking products in the SERPs will currently find that they are being redirect to the 404 page. I understand that redirection has to occur but my questions are these: Is it ok to redirect twice with 301 - so old URL to the "p" version then to final simplified version. Will link juice be lost doing this twice? If he redirects from the original URLS to the final version missing out the "p" version, what should happen to the "p" version - they are currently indexed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | AL123al0 -
Should I change or redirect this URL?
Happy Friday everyone! I just noticed that one of our Attorney Profile's url's is wrong. We used to have someone named "Dana Fortugno" as our Family Law attorney, but when he left, (over two years ago) we hired "Scott Finelli." The person who setup the site, just changed the information on the page not url. So instead of it saying "http://www.kempruge.com/scott-finelli-jd-llm/;" it says "http://www.kempruge.com/dana-fortugno-jd-llm/." I'm considering taking all the content on the page with the wrong url, copying it to a new page with the correct URL and 301 redirecting (what would now be a blank page) to the new page with the correct URL. Is this the best way to handle this? Also, I don't believe there are many SEO concerns regarding the pages specifically. The profile pages aren't what we rank for in any of our Family Law related keywords. I am worried about having a completely blank page that just 301 redirects as looking bad to google, but not sure if it would? As always, thank you for your time and any assistance you can provide. Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Anyone using Adobe Business Catalyst and Fixing SEO URL Blog Updates?
Does anyone else have experience with the current update Adobe Business Catalyst has announced for their blog features? Florin at BC offered the code below: http://www.graeagle.com/images/fb_blog_og_img.jpg" /> However nether myself nor another commentator can figure out how to make it work: I added the meta data to my template but it seems the tags are not correct. For example, the tag {tag_blogpostmetatitle} does not automatically include the SEO title that I've called out in my individual blog post. So, it appears the browser is ignoring the tag and just including it as is. When I view the source for my live blog article, this is what I get for the lines that I've added the code in the tag: Also, I cannot get schema metadata to work on the BC blog. For example, I have used it on this page: http://www.homedestination.com/_blog/Real_Estate_Blog/post/things_to_know_before_building_a_new_home/; which yields the following in Google's Rich Snippet Tool: Extracted structured data rdfa-node property: title: {tag_blogpostmetatitle} description:__{tag_blogpostmetadescription}
Technical SEO | | jessential0 -
Is rel=canonical needed for URLs with Google Analytics query strings?
If a page URL has Google Analytics query strings, does the page need a canonical tag? e.g., something.com/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=mar-2013-nsl I have rel=canonical on all our pages because some of them will be accessed via URLs that have non-Google strings. The strings are only for marketing purposes, not for identifying a specific page to display. e.g., something.com/?source=acme Should I only implement the canonical tag on the pages that might have non-Google marketing strings in the URL?
Technical SEO | | WayneBlankenbeckler0 -
If you only want your home page to rank, can you use rel="canonical" on all your other pages?
If you have a lot of pages with 1 or 2 inbound links, what would be the effect of using rel="canonical" to point all those pages to the home page? Would it boost the rankings of the home page? As I understand it, your long-tail keyword traffic would start landing on the home page instead of finding what they were looking for. That would be bad, but might be worth it.
Technical SEO | | watchcases0