Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Category page canonical tag
-
I know this question has been asked a few times on here but I'm looking for very specific advice.
Currently when you go to a category, say http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html, a canonical tag is added to the head of the page.
There are plenty of "variant" pages which carry the same tag, for example:
/range.html?p=2
/range.html?p=3
/range.html?dir=asc&order=price
/range.html?dir=asc&limit=all&order=priceIs it wise to push the "link juice" for each of these variant pages to the top level page? Or should each variant page have its own unique canonical tag?
After reading many blog posts, guides and papers I'm truly confused! Any general guidance or recommendations would be much appreciated.
Chris.
-
Thanks DP for the input!
-
It's tricky. Practically, I tend to agree with Tom - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially at small-to-medium scale (let's say hundreds of URLs, but not thousands), rel=canonical is probably going to do the job here.
Technically, CleverPhd is correct that paginated content may be better served by rel=prev/next, and Google isn't fond of you canonical'ing to page 1 of search results. Their other preferred method is to canonical to a "View All" page (and make that page/link available to visitors), if that page loads reasonably and isn't huge.
In practice, they don't seem to penalized anyone for a canonical to page 1, and I know some mega-site SEOs who use rel=prev/next and have been almost completely unable to tell if it works (based on how Google still indexes and ranks the content). I think the critical thing is to keep most of these pages out of the index and avoid the duplicates. If your approach is working for now, my gut says to leave it alone.
-
I would agree that use of the canonical tag is great, I would not say that it is the most optimal solution in this case as you have paginated results
http://searchengineland.com/the-latest-greatest-on-seo-pagination-114284
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-about-pagination-with-relnext-and.html
The use of rel next prev would be more appropriate in that case. It has the advantage of also letting the link juice flow properly and it is what Google "expects" to see.
Now, if you wanted to be more conservative with this approach, you could add the meta noindex so that you also get all the other paginated pages out of the index, but this is an optional step.
One other thing to think about, if this is not a pagination issue, but this is more like a search result or resort of the same page, I would no follow links to those pages and noindex the resulting duplicates. You have to think about crawl efficiency and if you are having Google crawl a bunch of thin pages that you are trying to canonical to a parent page, you are wasting Google's time. Google will only spend so much time on a site spidering. Do you want it to waste time spidering a ton of pages that dont matter? Sure, the canonical would give Google all the right signals of what page goes where, but why would you want it to waste time doing that. You would rather Google spend time on your most important pages and spidering and reindexing those. Think about it, if you are going to ask a math savant to help you with your homework, are you going to have him/her spend time helping you with 1000 simple addition problems? No! You would go right to the more important/complex items.
http://searchengineland.com/how-i-think-crawl-budget-works-sort-of-59768
Anyway, hope this helps give you another perspective. Someone will probably say, well, this only matters on larger sites etc. I say no, it matters on all sites as you always want to have your best foot forward when the spiders come a crawling.
-
Hi Chris
First and foremost, in my mind you don't need to change a thing. It's working well - and here's why:
Think of a canonical tag as an instruction to Google to treat that URL is the top dog, the be all and end all - the one that you want Google to index and rank.
Any other page or URL that has the same canonical tag on it is basically your way of saying - "see this page? Don't worry about that page, it's a variant of this page that might look the same. Ignore it and rank that other page!"
Now, why would you want to do this? Well, if Google thinks that your website has duplicated content and it believes it is being done to manipulate or game the algorithm, it might hit you with a penalty (often a Panda penalty).
Ecommerce sites often have this problem with their product pages and, while not usually intentional, Google has been known to put penalties on these sites.
Your site, in my mind, counters all of these problems very well.
Google can and will index URLs with query strings on them (anything with a "?" after it) and treat them as separate pages. That means, theoretically, Google would have tried to index all of these URLs of yours:
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?p=2_
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?p=3_
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?dir=asc&order=price_
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?dir=asc&limit=all&order=price_Now this would be a problem, as you'd quite likely have similar looking pages being indexed where products appear in multiple URLs. This duplicate content could lead to a penalty.
But that's where the canonical tag comes in and does a great job. Your tag is telling Google "ignore all versions of the http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html URL with a ? on the end of it - that's just to help the user and I'm not trying to duplicate content to try and rank higher. Ignore them and treat http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html as the main page"
So you're avoiding the problem of duplicate content and your canonicalisation is working well. Very well, in fact. If you do a site search (check it out here) you will see that only one version of the URL has been indexed and noted by Google - and that's the canonical version.
So keep it just as it is in my eyes - it's set up very well indeed!
Hope this helps.
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
-
Shifting target keyword to a new page, how do we rank the internal page?
I have been targeting one keyword for home page that was ranking between the postilion 6-7 but was never ranking on 1st as there were 2 highly competitive keywords targeted on the same page, I changed the keyword to an internal service page to rank it on 1st, I have optimized the content as well but the home page is still ranking on 11th, how do I get the internal page rank on that keyword
On-Page Optimization | | GOMO-Gabriel0 -
Is it better to keep a glossary or terms on one page or break it up into multiple pages?
We have a very large glossary of over 1000 industry terms on our site with links to reference material, embedded video, etc. Is it better for SEO purposes to keep this on one page or should we break it up into multiple pages, a different page for each letter for example? Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | KenW0 -
Can you use the canonical tag and rel=next and rel=prev on category pages.
We have a conflict of information between our web developers and our SEO company. We are an on-line retail company hence we have a fair number of different categories. Our site is set up with the rel=next and rel=prev tags. Our SEO company have asked us to implement canonical links on our category pages and leave the rel=next and rel=prev tags as they are. Our web developers are saying by doing this we are asking Google to ignore all of our products on all of the pages except page 1 which would mean Google would not index a lot of our products. I have looked at a few articles but I am struggling to understand which way to go. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | Palmbourne0 -
How to properly remove pages and a category from Google's index
I want to remove this category http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/ and all the pages in that category (e.g. http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/7386.html ) from Google's index. I used the following string in the "Reomval URS" section in Google Webmaster Tools: http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/* is that correct or I better use http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/ ? Thanks in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | VinceWicks0 -
URL for location pages
Hello all We would like to create clean, easy URLs for our large list of Location pages. If there are a few URLs for each of the pages, am I right when I'm saying we would like this to be the canonical? Right now we would like the URL to be: For example
On-Page Optimization | | Ferguson
Domain.com/locations/Columbus I have found some instances where there might be 2,3 or more locations in the same city,zip. My conclusion for these would be: adding their Branch id's on to the URL
Domain.com/locations/Columbus/0304 Is this an okay approach? We are unsure if the URL should have city,State,zip for SEO purposes?
The pages will have all of this info in it's content
BUT what would be best for SEO and ranking for a given location? Thank you for any info!0 -
Wordpress: Should I NO INDEX Categories & Archives Pages?
I am new to SEOmoz & trying to work my way through the ca-trillion errors that have been found on my site, but for each one I want to ensure that I am helping rather than harming my site. The tool has (as a "notice") said that my category pages & Archives are NO-INDEX, is this how these pages should be dealt with? In addition, the crawler has also (as a "warning error) discovered that my categories, and Archives do not have a meta description..is this of great importance for non indexed pages of this type? Thanks so much to the SEOmoz forum members, you have so far been of invaluable help to me.
On-Page Optimization | | KMack2 -
E-Commerce product pages that have multiple skus with unique pages.
Hey Guys, With the recent farm/panda update from google i'm at a cross roads as to how I should optimize product pages for a project i'm working on for a client. My client sells tires and one particular tire brand can have up to 15 models and each model can have up to 30 sizes. IE: 'Michelin Pilot Sport Cup' comes in 15 different sizes. Each size will have it's unique product page and description bringing me to my question. Should I use the same description on every size? I do plan on writting unique content for each tire model however i'm not sure if I should do it for every size. After all the tire model description is the same for every size, each size doesn't carry any unique characteristics that I can describe. Thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | MikeDelaCruz770 -
Page speed tools
Working on reducing page load time, since that is one of the ranking factors that Google uses. I've been using Page Speed FireFox plugin (requires FireBug), which is free. Pretty happy with it but wondering if others have pointers to good tools for this task. Thanks...
On-Page Optimization | | scanlin0