How to deal with rel=canonical when using POST parameters
-
Hi there,
I currently have a number of URLs throughout my site of the form:This sends the user through to a page showing hotels near the O2 Academy Islington. Once the page loads, my code looks at the parameters specified in the # part of the URL, and uses them to fill in a form, before submitting the form as a POST. This basically reloads the page, but checks the availability of the hotels first, and therefore returns slightly different content to the "canonical" version of this page (which simply lists the hotels before any availability checks done).
Until now, I've marked the page that has had availability checks as noindex,follow. But because the form was submitted with POST parameters, the URL looks exactly like the canonical one.
So the two URLs are identical, but due to POST parameters, the content is slightly different. Does that make sense?
My question is, should both versions of this page be marked as index,follow?
Thanks
Mike -
Handling rel=canonical with POST parameters indeed demands careful handling. Distinguishing content variations and marking the primary version, like showcasing hotels without availability checks, as canonical aligns with SEO principles, ensuring search engines prioritize the main version for enhanced search performance. It's like optimizing web content as intricate as selecting the perfect design from a Mardi Gras PNG collection for a vibrant online presence.
-
waiting a good reply and i also facing this issue. checking my website
-
waiting a good reply and i also facing this issue. checking my website
-
waiting a good reply and i also facing this issue. checking my website
-
@mjk26 Handling rel=canonical with POST parameters requires careful consideration. Despite identical URLs, the content differs due to the POST parameters. It's wise to mark both versions as index,follow, given Google's focus on user signals. For clarity, let's consider an example: Say, you have a page showcasing hotels near Premier Inn London Angel. One version lists hotels, while the other checks hotel availability before listing. Mark the version without availability checks as canonical to signify its primary content. This ensures search engines prioritize the main version while still acknowledging the alternate content. This approach aligns with SEO principles and enhances search performance.
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
-
Can access my site using www
Hello, when I try to access my website using www i would like it to redirect to non www but instead it shows a sal error message.
On-Page Optimization | | Voopoo2 -
Why doesn't MailChimp use an SSL certificate on their homepage?
MailChimp, one of the biggest brands in online marketing doesn't use an SSL certificate on their homepage...Is there a simple reason for this? Wouldn't they get an SEO boost from having one?
On-Page Optimization | | WickVideo1 -
Rel="Canonical"
Hi!, We´ve just launched a new website and on this web we are using a lot Call to Actions on every page of the web and all of this CTA`s goes to the same Landing Page. (Ej: http://www.landing page.com) The problem comes when Google says this Landing Page is duplicate content because we are using some parameters like, for instance, http://www.landing page.com/?fuente=Soporteensalesforce So now we have just 1 Landing Page but Google sees 13 pages, because of this parameters and Moz alerted me that Google is seeing it as duplicate content. Yesterday I put this on the head of the only Landing Page we have so Google can see it in the proper way, as just one landing, but I don´t know if it is enough or should I do anything else? What I put on the Head: Hope someone can help me about this because I´ve tried to find a solution and this is the only thing that came up to me, and don´t know if it´s the right thing. Thanks for your time!
On-Page Optimization | | Manuel_LeadClic0 -
I am optimizing title tags and was wondering if it makes a difference if I use "commas" in between keywords that are synonyms or should I use "and" instead?
For example: "pants, trousers at pants.com" or "pants and trousers at pants.com".
On-Page Optimization | | EcomLkwd0 -
Too many forum posts - may I delete the oldest ones?
Hello, We've got product pages with comments. We have collected so many comments for the last two years on these pages so they made problems to our website. We plan to cut every posts older than one year to solve this problem. Could it be bad for SEO? (Yes, these are really unique and relevant posts...) How could I predict the consequences? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | DDL0 -
Do I need a unique post meta description
Just wondering what the best practise is for unique meta desriptions on blogs. When I post a blog on my wordpress, clicking the title takes you to an individual page with that blog on it. I understand how important the title tag is on this page but when I create a meta description: a) is it useful? b) Should it be unique or is it ok to copy part of the post and insert that as the meta tag? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | acs1111 -
Canonical
http://www.providenceelectricnc.com/monroe-electrician-nc Shows great in on Page Report Card for Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Then POW Canonical URL Tag Usage .... it says there is none ....?? HUH ? Searched forum but it is not discussed . Thanks !
On-Page Optimization | | SEOJunkie670 -
Which Canonical URL Tag tag should we remove?
Hi guys, We are in the process of optimizing the pages of our new site. We have used the 'on page' report card feature in the Seomoz Pro Campaign analyser. On several pages we got the following result No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Number of Canonical tags <dl> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> </dl> I have looked into the source code of one of the pages http://www.sabaileela.co.uk/acupuncture-london and can see that there are two "canonical" tags. Does anyone have any advise on which one I should ask the developer to remove? I am not sure how to determine the relative importance of either link.
On-Page Optimization | | brian.james0