Rel=canonical or 301 to pass on page authority/juice
-
I have a large body of product support documentation and there are similar pages for each of versions of the product, with minor changes as the product changes. The two oldest versions of this documentation get the best ranking and are powering Google snippets--however, this content is out of date.
The team responsible for the support documentation wants current pages to rank higher. I suggested 301 redirects but they want to maintain the old page content for clients still using the older version of the product. Is there a way to move a page's power to a more updated version of the page, but without wiping out the old content?
Considering recommending canonical tags, but I'm not sure this will get me all the way there either as there are some differences between pages, especially as the product has changed over time.
Thoughts?
-
Knowing that with a large body of documentation like this, the chances of being able to rewrite it all to combine into a single page are pretty slim (and knowing that might be a very negative user experience) you're really only left with the canonical tag option - assuming the older docs need to be maintained.
You're right to be concerned, as Google has been clear that canonical only applies to pages that have substantially identical content. Unfortunately, they do a really poor job of explaining just how much variation would be allowed.
Is it okay if the canonical is not an exact duplicate of the content?
We allow slight differences, e.g., in the sort order of a table of products. We also recognize that we may crawl the canonical and the duplicate pages at different points in time, so we may occasionally see different versions of your content. All of that is okay with us.
~ https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.htmlMy impression is that they would honour canonical in your use case.
Really, the only way to know is to select a couple of products' documentation pages and conduct a test. Canonicalise all old version to the current version and request re-indexing for each page. Then monitor the results (The new index monitoring tools in the new GSC are useful for this). You'll want to choose at least one test case that involves featured snippets - it would be incredibly useful to know if the FS transfers across to the new canonical page!
Do note that you'll need an ongoing process for managing the canonicals s each new iteration of documentation is added - all related pages will need to have their canonicals updated to point to the newest each time new docs are published.
Interesting conundrum. Please let us know the results if you decide to try a test!
Is that useful?
Paul
-
Please don't hijack someone else's question, zecase. Much better if you start your own question as it's completely unrelated to the current one.
Paul
-
Well is not as simple there are many factors involved as I see both of them have a low DA but probably you have some traffic, so the first thing that you need to know is which pages are ranking, the queries of those pages, Ideally the merger process should preserve the URL structure of both and make the redirection from the server
-
Basically, you have a problem because you are competing with your own content, So Google is select the old pages because from google perspective they are most trustable and have more value. So I suggest is merge them into a single one.
Let's take a simple example lets assume you have a car manufacturer like Toyota. You have a car model like Corolla and it was launched 2018 but this model has several versions L, LE, LE Eco, XLE, SE, and XSE.
So you can create a single page for each version with a parent page or parent category and it will look like this
But in your case based on what you mentioned Google has problems to determinate which one is the right one according to user intent. So, In that case, you can merge all those pages into a single master page so instead of creating several you put all your content in a single page divided into several sections (anchor links)
So your site will look like this
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/#L
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/#LE
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/#XLE
This is a good example of how to integrate https://kinsta.com/blog/anchor-links/
Hope this info will answer your question
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
-
Link rel="prev" AND canonical
Hi guys, When you have several tabs on your website with products, you can most likely navigate to page 2, 3, 4 etc...
Technical SEO | | AdenaSEO
You can add the link rel="prev" and link rel="next" tags to make sure that 1 page get's indexed / ranked by Google. am I correct? However this still means that all the pages can get indexed, right? For example a webshop makes use of the link rel="prev" and ="next" tags. In the Google results page though, all the seperate tabs pages are still visible/indexed..
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=1
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=24
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=19
etc..... Can we prevent this, and make sure only the main page get's indexed and ranked, by adding a canonical link on every 'tab page' to the main page --> www.domain.nl/watches/ I hope I explained it well and I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Regards, Tom1 -
Is the Authority of Individual Pages Diluted When You Add New Pages?
I was wondering if the authority of individual pages is diluted when you add new pages (in Google's view). Suppose your site had 100 pages and you added 100 new pages (without getting any new links). Would the average authority of the original pages significantly decrease and result in a drop in search traffic to the original pages? Do you worry that adding more pages will hurt pages that were previously published?
Technical SEO | | Charlessipe0 -
Canonical and Alternate REL
Hi I have a website which is mostly dynamic content from a database. In the header of the site I have a function which outputs the rel="canonical" link and in some cases the canonical is the page the user is visiting and not another page on the site but I still show it in the source. However we have just recently launched our mobile website which is stored on an M DOT domain (i.e. m.mydomain.com) which has different URL's to my main website so following Google's recommendations we have created rel="alternate" links on my desktop site to point to the equivalent mobile pages and on the mobile pages I have created rel="canonical" links which point back to the relevant desktop site keeping everything tidy.
Technical SEO | | yousayjump
My question is, is there an issue with having both a rel="canonical" and rel="alternate" in the source of of a single page on my desktop site? Is it conflicting or detrimental in anyway? Thanks for reading0 -
Rel canonical for partner sites - product pages only or also homepage and other key pages?
Hello there Our main site is www.arenaflowers.com. We also run a number of partner sites (eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/). We've relcanonical'd the products on the partner site back to the main (arenaflowers.com) site. eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013 rel canonicals back to: http://www.arenaflowers.com/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013). My question: Should we also relcanonical the homepage and other key pages on partner sites back to the main arenaflowers website too? The content is similar but not identical. We don't want our partner sites to be outranking the original (as is the case on kw flower delivery for example). (NB this situation may be complicated by the fact we appear to have an unnatural link penalty on af.com (and when we did an upgrade a while back, the af.com site fell out of the index altogether due to some issues with our move to AWS.) We're getting professional SEO advice on this but wondered what the Moz community's thoughts were.. Cheers, Will
Technical SEO | | ArenaFlowers.com0 -
How to handle outdated products/pages?
Hi, I wonder how I should handle pages with outdated products. Our market is changing rapidly unfortunately so products we offered in the past are no longer existent. So for example one of our product was called "PRODUCT 1" The URL for this product is still:
Technical SEO | | bastelele
www.mydomain.com/product-1/ with different subpages about the product like:
www.mydomain.com/product-1/about/
www.mydomain.com/product-1/howto/
www.mydomain.com/product-1/pricing/
www.mydomain.com/product-1/whatever/ Our new product is totally different from the first one. Is it still a good idea to set up 301 redirects or are there any other ideas? Thanks in advance
Bastian0 -
Canonical & rel=prev / next changes to website a good idea or not?
Hi all, I decided yesterday to make a load of changes to my website, and today i woke thinking, should i have done that! So below is an example of what i have done (i will try to explain clearly anyway), can you let me know if you think what i have done would harm or help my website in search results etc... ok, so lets take just one category - Cameras And it has the sub categories - box dome bullet it also has other sub categories (which are actually features, but the only way i can show them on my site is by having them as a sub-category with its own static page, and adding the products to these as secondary categories) vandal proof high resolution night vision previously i have it set up so that every single category / sub category / feature had its own static page, with a canonical tag to itself (i.e cameras.html canonical was to cameras.html, vandalproof.html canonical was to vandalproof.html). Any of the categories / sub cats / features that had more than one page were simply not in search results due to the canonical pointing to "Page 1"... What i have now done: Last night i decided to change all this, now for all categories / sub cats / features i have add rel=prev / next where applicable, and removed the canonical from second / third / fourth pages etc, but left the canonical on "page 1". I also removed any keywords from page 2,3,4 etc and changed descriptions to just page "X" + category name. So for example, page one looks like: and page two looks like: I also went a little further (maybe too far) and decided that the features pages would canonicalize back to cameras so for those i now have: Page 1: Page 2: Any advice is welcome on the above, in regards to which way may be better and why, and obviously if anything jumps out as a mistake... Please advise James
Technical SEO | | isntworkdull0 -
Rel Author Tag - Attributing Content to a Company
If the content is written by a corporation and cannot be attributed to a specific writer, yet we want to claim the authorship - can a logo be used instead of a headshot in the Google Profile? Researching the above, and found that its a NO, but it can be done somewhat through rel=publisher tag, which at present is not very useful. Any other thoughts?
Technical SEO | | yanaiguana1111 -
Rel Canonical ? please help
Can some one please answer a question for me, I have a crawl error stating that I have [#### Rel Canonical 326](http://pro.seomoz.org/campaigns/243472/issues/18) Can you please advise me on how serious these Errors are? I was told by one person not to worry but It seems far to many to me. thanks
Technical SEO | | Chris__Chris0