Site-wide Canonical Rewrite Rule for Multiple Currency URL Parameters?
-
Hi Guys,
I am currently working with an eCommerce site which has site-wide duplicate content caused by currency URL parameter variations. Example:
https://www.marcb.com/?setCurrencyId=3
https://www.marcb.com/?setCurrencyId=2
https://www.marcb.com/?setCurrencyId=1
My initial thought is to create a bunch of canonical tags which will pass on link equity to the core URL version. However I was wondering if there was a rule which could be implemented within the .htaccess file that will make the canonical site-wide without being so labour intensive.
I also noticed that these URLs are being indexed in Google, so would it be worth setting a site-wide noindex to these variations also?
Thanks
-
Added to note - you can also use GDC to inform Google which URL parameters should be ignored when indexing - can be a quick shortcut initially, but you'll definitely want to get rel-canonical properly implemented for Google as well as all the other search engines.
-
This issue is resolved by adding a single self-referential rel-canonical tag to the header of each page of the site, Catherine. Once you've done that, the URLs that contain the parameters will automatically contain the canonical to the primary URL (because the pages' code are actually the same - it's just the URL itself that is changing. By which I mean - there aren't separate pages for each of the currencies. They're are all the same page code, with just the parameter added to the URL and prices dynamically changed.)
This does mean that the search engines would index the page with the default prices, which appears to be Euros.
For example, if your home page had a self-referential canonical tag, it's canonical tag would be
<link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="<a class="attribute-value">http://www.marcb.com</a>" />
While this may seem redundant, it also means that this URL https://www.marcb.com/?setCurrencyId=2 would also contain the above canonical tag, since the page is actually built from the same code. So it's canonical would point to the correct URL automatically, without having to do anything specific for all those variations. This is a core function of how CMSs (Content Management Systems) templates work. This time it works in your favour.
You definitely don't want to no-index those parameter-based variations even if you could. Once you get the canonicals properly implemented, you want the search crawlers to keep crawling those pages URLs so they can discover the corrected canonicals and understand that they are intentional dupes of the core page. They'll eventually drop the parameter-based URLs out of the index, which you can monitor in your Google Search Console, for example. There's a major benefit to the site if the search crawlers aren't wasting their time on duplicate/useless pages, as well as reducing potential issues with Panda/Quality algorithms, so well worth getting this corrected right away.
Hope all that makes sense?
Paul
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
-
Client wants to remove mobile URLs from their sitemap to avoid indexing issues. However this will require SEVERAL billing hours. Is having both mobile/desktop URLs in a sitemap really that detrimental to search indexing?
We had an enterprise client ask to remove mobile URLs from their sitemaps. For their website both desktop & mobile URLs are combined into one sitemap. Their website has a mobile template (not a responsive website) and is configured properly via Google's "separate URL" guidelines. Our client is referencing a statement made from John Mueller that having both mobile & desktop sitemaps can be problematic for indexing. Here is the article https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-sitemaps-20137.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB
We would be happy to remove the mobile URLs from their sitemap. However this will unfortunately take several billing hours for our development team to implement and QA. This will end up costing our client a great deal of money when the task is completed. Is it worth it to remove the mobile URLs from their main website to be in adherence to John Mueller's advice? We don't believe these extra mobile URLs are harming their search indexing. However we can't find any sources to explain otherwise. Any advice would be appreciated. Thx.0 -
Merging Two Unrelated Sites into a Third Site
We have a new client interested in possibly merging 2 sites into one under the brand of a new parent company. Here's a breakdown of the scenario..... BrandA.com sells a variety of B2B widget-services via their online store. BrandB.com sells a variety of B2B thing-a-majig products and services (some of them large in size) not sold through an online store. These are sold more consultatively via a sales team. The new parent company, BrandA-B.com is considering combining the two sites under the new brand parent company domain. The Widget-services and Thing-A-Majigs have very little similarity or purchase crossover; so just because you're interested in one doesn't make you a good candidate for the other. We feel pretty confident that we can round-up all the necessary pages and inbound links to do proper transitioning to a new, separate third domain though we're not in agreement that this is the best course of action. Currently the individual brand sites are fairly well known in their industry and each ranks fairly well for a variety of important terms though there is room for improvement and each site has good links with the exception of the new site which has considerably fewer. BrandA.com DA = 73 - 19 years old
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | OPM
BrandB.com DA = 55 - 18 years old
BrandA-B.com DA = 40 - 1 year old Our SEO team members have opinions on what the potential outcome(s) of this would be but are wondering what the community here thinks. Will the combining of the sites cause a dilution of the topics of the two sites and hurt rankings? Will the combining of the domain authority help one set part of the business but hurt the other? What do you think? What would you do?0 -
Multiple 301 redirects for a HTTPS URL. Good or bad?
I'm working on an ecommerce website that has a few snags and issues with it's coding. They're using https, and when you access the website through domain.com, theres a 301 redirect to http://www.domain.com and then this, in turn, redirected to https://www.domain.com. Would this have a deterimental effect or is that considered the best way to do it. Have the website redirect to http and then all http access is redirected to the https URL? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jasondexter0 -
Redirecting Pages from site A to site B
Hi, I have a client who have a solid, high ranking content based site (site A). They have now created an ecommerce site in addition (site B). To give site B a boost in terms of search engine visibility upon launch, they now wish to redirect approx 90% of site As pages to site B. What would be the implications of this? Apart from customers being automatically redirected from the page they thought they where landing on, how would google now view site A? What are your thoughts to thier idea. I am trying to talk them out of it as I think its a poor one.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Does having a trailing slash make a url different than the same url without the trailing slash?
Does having a trailing slash make a url different than the same url without the trailing slash? www.example.com/services Or www.example.com/services**/** Does Google consider these to be the same link or does Google treat them as different links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webestate0 -
Our Site's Content on a Third Party Site--Best Practices?
One of our clients wants to use about 200 of our articles on their site, and they're hoping to get some SEO benefit from using this content. I know standard best practices is to canonicalize their pages to our pages, but then they wouldn't get any benefit--since a canonical tag will effectively de-index the content from their site. Our thoughts so far: add a paragraph of original content to our content link to our site as the original source (to help mitigate the risk of our site getting hit by any penalties) What are your thoughts on this? Do you think adding a paragraph of original content will matter much? Do you think our site will be free of penalty since we were the first place to publish the content and there will be a link back to our site? They are really pushing for not using a canonical--so this isn't an option. What would you do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1 -
Whats the best search parameters on Open Site Explorer for identifying un-natural back links?
Using open site explorer, what parameters will best narrow down low quality back links(or back links that could be viewed as un-natural by Google)? ie. blog networks, link schemes, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stromme0 -
Questions regarding Google's "improved url handling parameters"
Google recently posted about improving url handling parameters http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html I have a couple questions: Is it better to canonicalize urls or use parameter handling? Will Google inform us if it finds a parameter issue? Or, should we have a prepare a list of parameters that should be addressed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0