Canonicalization
-
I understand what canonicalization does, however I'm a bit confused on one point.
Generally, of course it's used to determine the main article out of two which are identical.
But what happens to the keywords if the content isn't quite identical?
Example:-
Let's say the 'first page' it is optimised for 'racing cycles'.
The 'second page' is optimised for 'second-hand racing cycles'Let's assume that the 'first page' doesn't have any reference to 'used' or 'second-hand' so it would be essentially unrelated to the 'second page'.
If I then add an canonical tag to the 'second page' that points to the 'first page' in theory, the 'second page' will drop from the search rankings and pass any link authority back to the 'first page'
What I want to know is will the 'first page', then rank for the keywords that the second page used to rank for? (in this case 'second-hand racing cycles')
-
Hi Mike,
That new tool is very revealing and supports my experience that you can't dupe Google into ranking a different page just by canonicalization. Thanks!
Nigel
-
Hi seoman,
I think Nigel is spot-on here and has summarized the issues at hand well.
One thing to add: If you do deploy canonicals but are not sure how/when Google is respecting or ignoring them, the new "URL Inspector" tool in the new version of Search Console provides some helpful (and unprecedented) reporting detail on this, including URLs for "User-declared canonical" (what you set in your tag) and "Google-selected canonical" (the URL Google opted to treat as canonical).
While there doesn't seem to be any clarity as to why Google selected an alternative, sometimes the URL they picked provides a hint. We've never had this clarity from Google before on when they've opted to select a different canonical URL, so it's good to at least know when it's happening.
Best,
Mike -
Hi seoman
Canonicalisation was set up by Google originally to deal with pages which were basically the same but had two different URLs so for example:
website/cycles/racing-cycles
website/cycles/productid=123If the URL contained content that was the same then you would add a canonical on the second one pointing at the first. The second one would then drop from serps and the first one would be allowed to breathe and in most cases rise because the duplicate content was taken away.
People then started to use it in a more sophisticated way and as your example shows you could canonicalse 'second-hand racing cycles to racing-cycles. This would only be in a circumstance where you believed that the content on the second-hand page was so similar to the racing-cycles page that you would find it really hard to rank for both.
So you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles which could be a good move. The thing is that Google won't combine content from both pages it will simply rely on the content of the racing-cycles page to rank it. You must make sure that the racing-cycles page contains everything you would want both pages to be found for.
Now here's the problem.
If you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles and the two pages are very different then Google can start to distrust your canonicals and show the page in serps anyway! (serps = search engine results pages - so they have to be very similar. It would truly be a disaster if you canonicalise one to the other and they both still ranked (badly ) but I have seen this happen.
So the rule is:
1. Only canonicalise if both pages serve the same user intent
2. Make sure that the two pages are very similar otherwise Google can ignore the canonical
3. If they are just not similar build-up the content on second-hand cycles to take it away from just racing-cycles and have it as a separate page or sub-page of racing-cycles.The conclusion is that if you want racing-cycles to rank for all the keywords and phrases that second-hand cycles does, then include them and synonyms on the page.
I hope that helps
Nigel
-
If the contents are not identical, you don't need to worry about losing the rankings. Second-page ranking will be dropped if contents are same.
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
-
Should I canonicalize URLs with no query params even though query params are always automatically appended?
There's a section of my client's website that presents quarterly government financial data. Users can filter results to see different years and quarters of financial info. If a user navigates to those pages, the URLs automatically append the latest query parameters. It's not a redirect...when I asked a developer what the mechanism was for this happening, he said "magic." He honestly didn't know how to describe it. So my question is, is it ok to canonicalize the URL without any query parameters, knowing that the user will always be served a page that does have query parameters? I need to figure out how to manage all of the various versions of these URLs.
Technical SEO | | LeahH0 -
Disallowing URL Parameters vs. Canonicalizing
Hi all, I have a client that has a unique search setup. So they have Region pages (/state/city). We want these indexed and are using self-referential canonicals. They also have a search function that emulates the look of the Region pages. When you search for, say, Los Angeles, the URL changes to _/search/los+angeles _and looks exactly like /ca/los-angeles. These search URLs can also have parameters (/search/los+angeles?age=over-2&time[]=part-time), which we obviously don't want indexed. Right now my concern is how best to ensure the /search pages don't get indexed and we don't get hit with duplicate content penalties. The options are this: Self-referential canonicals for the Region pages, and disallow everything after the second slash in /search/ (so the main search page is indexed) Self-referential canonicals for the Region pages, and write a rule that automatically canonicalizes all other search pages to /search. Potential Concern: /search/ URLs are created even with misspellings. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Alces1 -
Duplicate Content: Canonicalization vs. Redirects
Hi all, I have a client that I recently started working with whose site was built with the following structure: domain.com
Technical SEO | | marisolmarketing
domain.com/default.asp Essentially, there is a /default.asp version of every single page on the site. That said, I'm trying to figure out the easiest/most efficient way to fix all the /default.asp pages...whether that be 301 redirecting them to the .com version, adding a canonical tag to every .asp page, or simply NOINDEXing the .asp pages. I've seen a few other questions on here that are similar, but none that really say which would be the easiest way to accomplish this without going through every single page... Thanks in advance!0 -
Is anyone using Canonicalization for duplicate content
Hi i am trying to find out if anyone is using Canonicalization for duplicate content on a joomla site. I am using joomla 1.5 and trying to find either a module or manually how to sort this out as i have over 300 pages of duplicate content because i am not using this technique any help and advice would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Internal file extension canonicalization
Ok no doubt this is straightforward, however seem to be finding to hard to find a simple answer; our websites' internal pages have the extension .html. Trying to the navigate to that internal url without the .html extension results in a 404. The question is; should a 401 be used to direct to the extension-less url to future proof? and should internal links direct to the extension-less url for the same reason? Hopefully that makes sense and apologies for what I believe is a straightforward answer;
Technical SEO | | jg1000 -
How to solve issues regarding canonicalization?
Today, I was searching for article which may help me in issues regarding canonicalization and found very interesting article on SEOmoz. I am facing issues regarding de-indexing of pages and down of organic search engine visits. I have done proper R & D and apply it very carefully. But, still my indexed pages and visits are going down. I have applied canonical tag to following pages. Narrow by search: http://www.vistastores.com/outdoor-umbrellas?manufacturer=California+Umbrella Sorting: http://www.vistastores.com/outdoor-umbrellas?dir=desc&order=position Pagination: http://www.vistastores.com/outdoor-umbrellas?p=2 How can I improve my performance?
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
SEO-MOZ bar question on root vs subdomain / canonicalization issues
When I look at the SEO-MOZ bar for our site and click next to subdomain (# links from #domains) it shows my main incoming links etc. but when I click on root domain ity shows mydomain/default.asp and 4 incoming links as well as a message that says this url redirects to another url. Does this imply canonicalization issues or is there a 301 redirect to my non /default.asp correcting this issue. Thanks kindly, Howard
Technical SEO | | mrkingsley0 -
Considering redirecting or canonicalization - Best Practice
Hi, I'm having a techinical problem and I would like advise on the effects this is having on my SEO efforts. My old site www.oldsiteexample.com (live for about 8 years) Directs to my new site www.example.com which is fine BUT When I type me new website into the tool bar both sides are found & do not direct to one domain; www.example.com & example.com (both the same site) What is the best practice here? Direct my new non www to my new www site considering my old website directs to the www. Advise & the SEO affects this is having my website would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
Technical SEO | | Socialdude0