Any SEO-wizards out there who can tell me why Google isn't following the canonicals on some pages?
-
Hi,
I am banging my head against the wall regarding the website of a costumer: In "duplicate title tags" in GSC I can see that Google is indexing a whole bunch parametres of many of the url's on the page. When I check the rel=canonical tag, everything seems correct. My costumer is the biggest sports retailer in Norway. Their webshop has approximately 20 000 products. Yet they have more than 400 000 pages indexed by Google.
So why is Google indexing pages like this? What is missing in this canonical?https://www.gsport.no/herre/klaer/bukse-shorts?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=descWhy isn't Google just cutting off the ?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=desc part of the url?Can it be the canonical-tag itself, or could the problem be somewhere in the CMS?
Looking forward to your answers
- Sigurd
-
Thank you all! I have forwarded this to the owner of the page, so now we'll just sit back and see the effects
-
Hi Inevo,
David and Jake's comments and recommendations are spot on correct. You need to update your robots.txt file. Jake is correct when he said "just because a canonical tag is in place, that doesn't prevent Google from crawling and indexing the page."
Sincerely,
Dana
-
Hi Inevo,
Canonical tags are being used correctly and it doesn't actually look like any of the URLs with query strings are indexed in Google.
I'm going to go off the topic of canonicals now, but still related to the crawl and index of the site:
Has the site changed CMS in the last year or two? It's possible that some of the 400k URLs indexed are old or were not canonicalized properly at some point in time, so they were indexed.
The problem with how the site it currently setup is that it is basically impossible for search engines to crawl because of the product filter. I wrote an article about this a while ago (link), specifically to do with product filters in Magento. Product filters can turn your site into a 'black hole' for search engines - which is definitely happening in this case (try crawling it with Screaming Frog).
I'd recommend blocking product filter URLs from being crawled so that search engines are only crawling important pages on the site.
You should be able to fix this be adding these 3 lines to your Robots.txt:
Disallow: *?
Disallow: *+
Allow: *?p=(Note: please check that you don't need to add more parameters to Allow)
These changes will make crawling your site much more efficient - from millions of crawlable URLs, to probably 30-35k.
Let me know how this goes for you
Cheers,
David
-
I would definitely check to make sure the canonical tag is being properly used. Make sure it is an absolute url vs. a relative url.
That being said, please note that just because a canonical tag is in place, that doesn't prevent Google from crawling and indexing the page, and including the page in search results with the site:domain command. If you see the canonicalized URLs outranking their canonical, then you can start to question why Google isn't honoring the canonical.
Please note that canonical tags are a recommendation and not a directive.. meaning Google doesn't have to honor them if they do not feel the page is truly a canonical.
-Jake
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
-
Crawl solutions for landing pages that don't contain a robots.txt file?
My site (www.nomader.com) is currently built on Instapage, which does not offer the ability to add a robots.txt file. I plan to migrate to a Shopify site in the coming months, but for now the Instapage site is my primary website. In the interim, would you suggest that I manually request a Google crawl through the search console tool? If so, how often? Any other suggestions for countering this Meta Noindex issue?
Technical SEO | | Nomader1 -
'duplicate content' on several different pages
Hi, I've a website with 6 pages identified as 'duplicate content' because they are very similar. This pages looks similar because are the same but it show some pictures, a few, about the product category that's why every page look alike each to each other but they are not 'exactly' the same. So, it's any way to indicate to Google that the content is not duplicated? I guess it's been marked as duplicate because the code is 90% or more the same on 6 pages. I've been reviewing the 'canonical' method but I think is not appropriated here as the content is not the same. Any advice (that is not add more content)?
Technical SEO | | jcobo0 -
Is content on widget bar less 'seo important' than main content?
hi, i wonder if content on widget bar less 'seo important' than main content.. i mean, is better to place content and links on main cotent than on wordpress widget bar? What are the pros and cons? tx!
Technical SEO | | Dreamrealemedia0 -
A few pages deindexed from Google .. PLEASE HELP!
My client has a fairly new site and we were agressively building content to the website. It is an ecommerce store and we have got a blog as well. We guest blogged in a few places and wrote 3-5 articles a day. Last few days, i noticed 3-4 pages that we were building links to got deindexed. What could be the reason? We weren't using any bots to build links, only a couple of it around 5-10 links to a page. Google WMT is not showing any messages and no manual action is seen. What could be the reason? I've submitted those URL for reindex and so far nothing seems to work. Any idea? Please help.
Technical SEO | | WayneRooney0 -
Why Doesn't All Structured Data Show in Google Webmaster?
We have more than 80k products, each of them with data-vocabulary.org markup on them, but only 17k are being reported as having the markup in Google Webmaster (GW). If I run a page that GW isn't showing as having the structure data in the structured data testing tool (http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets), it passes. Any thoughts on why this would be happening? Is it because we should switch from data-vocabulary.org to schema.org? Example of page that GW is reporting that has structured data: https://www.etundra.com/restaurant-equipment/refrigeration/display-cases/coutnertop/vollrath-40862-36-inch-cubed-glass-refrigerated-display-cabinet/ Example of page that isn't showing in GW as having structured data: https://www.etundra.com/kitchen-supplies/cutlery/sandwich-spreaders/mundial-w5688-4-and-half-4-and-half-sandwich-spreader/
Technical SEO | | eTundra0 -
Big page of clients - links to individual client pages with light content - not sure if canonical or no-follow - HELP
Not sure what best practice here is: http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ Is this is a situation where I'm best off adding canonical tags back to the main clients page, or to the practice area each client falls under? No-following all these links and adding canonical? No-follow/No-index all client pages? need some advice here...
Technical SEO | | simplycary0 -
Duplicate Page Content / Rel Canonical
Hi, The diagnostics shows me that I have 590 Duplicate Page Content , but when it shows the Rel Canonical I have over 1000, so dose that mean I have no Duplicate Page Content problem? Please help.
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
Negative effect on google SEO with 301's?
Cleaning up the website by consolidating pages - each with a little bit of useful info - into one definitive page that is really useful and full of good content. Doing 301's from the many old pages to the one new really good one. Didn't want to do rel canonicals because I don't want the old pages around, I want to get rid of them. Will google see the 301s and go nuts or see that there is one definitive, really good page with no duplicate content? The change is very good from a user perspective. Also, On-Page Report Cards on SEOMoz suggests that you put a rel canonical on a page to itself to tell google that this page is the definitive page. What do you think? Thanks so much for anyone who has time to answer - so many gurus - this is a great forum. - jean
Technical SEO | | JeanYates0