Canonical URLs being ignored?
-
Hi Guys,
Has anybody noticed canonical URLs being ignored where they were previously obeyed?
I have a site that is doing this at the moment and just wondered if this was being seen elsewhere and if anyone knows what the solution is?
Thanks,
Elias
-
I've usually seen it in cases like what Istvan mentioned - somehow, another signal comes into play. Maybe it's new links to the non-canonical URLs, maybe some internal pages with old links get crawled, maybe a new 301 or canonical comes into play that conflicts with the existing canonical.
If they're being ignore now, then it's possible you're using the canonical tag as a band-aid, for lack of a better term, and the underlying problem that caused the duplicates is still in play. If Google's really being indecisive, you may want to take a closer look at that underlying problem and not just rely on canonicals.
Generally, the tag is pretty strong, but Google does get it wrong from time to time. Sorry, it's hard to advise based on generalities. The devil is in the details on these situations, I find.
-
It was the same at that website also... This is why they have asked me if I have seen similar situations... and while investigating it, the most logical answer was this.
I hope it will resolve the issue for you also!
Cheers,
Istvan
-
Thanks István
I'm not sure if it is the same thing but I will look into it. It just seems odd to suddenly ignore Canonical URLs.
Thanks
-
Hi Elias,
I have seen a similar issue a few months ago at an ex employer. In their case 301 redirects have been ignored!
So basically what happened:
- They had an older link structure which they have redirected to the new url versions (this happened around 2009-2010)
- After a "silence" period in affiliate marketing they have reactivated their affiliate programs and heavily invested in it.
- Because of no. 2. they have gained a lot of incoming links with the old links
Now what we believe went wrong is that Google could interpret this as an "accidental" 301 redirect because of the high number new incoming links to the old version.
As far as I know, when they resolved their affiliate links everything went back to normal.
It might be that your situation is a similar one to theirs.
I hope it helps,
Istvan
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
-
Key Word in URL - To Include or Exclude?
Hi MoZ Community, Key word inclusion in URL has been discussed a fair bit on here and curious for some feedback on two options on URL structure. Ran’s #3 tip from his recent ‘15 SEO Best Practices for Structuring URLs’ states that key word inclusion still has some value but I’m not too sure if we’re going too far with the below examples. We sell footwear and only footwear for Women, Men & Kids and use those words as our key menu headings at the top. Under each of the main headings within a mega menu the users then has the choice to ‘shop by style’, ‘shop by brand’ etc… The key question or feedback is about including the word ‘shoes’ in my URLs as many of the top ranking competitors do it. e.g. /women-shoes-heels, womens-shoes-sandals or womens-shoes/heels, womens-shoes/sandals I think Google is smart enough to determine we have a shoe store and not sure of the value from a SEO or user experience perspective of adding the additional word. Thoughts on going with option A or B would be valued.... Option A - http://shopname.com/womens/sandals, http://shopname.com/womens/heels OR Option B - http://shopname.com/womens-shoes/sandals, http://shopname.com/womens-shoes/heels Thanks, | | |
Algorithm Updates | | chewythedog
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |0 -
Flat Structure URL vs Structured Sub-directory URL
We are finally taking our classifieds site forward and moving into a much improved URL structure, however, there is some disagreement over whether to go with a Flat URL structure or a structured sub-directory. I've browsed all of the posts and Q&A's for this going back to 2011, and still don't feel like I have a real answer. Has anyone tested this yet, or is there any consensus over ranking? I am in a disagreement with another SEO manager about this for our proposed URL structure redesign who is for it because it is what our competitors are doing. Our classifieds are geographically based, and we group by state, county, and city. Most of our traffic comes from state and county based searches. We also would like to integrate categories into the URL for some of the major search terms we see. The disagreement arises around how to structure the site. I prefer the logical sub-directory style: [sitename]/[category]/[state]/[county]/
Algorithm Updates | | newspore
mysite.com/for-sale/california/kern-county/
or
[sitename]/[category]/[county]-county-[stateabb]/
mysite.com/for-sale/kern-county-ca/ I don't mind the second, except for when you look at it in the context of the whole site: Geo Landing Pages:
mysite.com/california/
mysite.com/los-angeles-ca-90210/ Actual Search Pages:
mysite.com/for-sale/orange-ca/[filters] Detail Pages:
mysite.com/widget-type/cool-product-name/productid I want to make sure this flat structure performs better before sacrificing my analytics sanity (and ordered logic). Any case studies, tests or real data around this would be most helpful, someone at Moz must've tackled this by now!0 -
Is this spamming keywords into a url?
My company has previously added on extensions to a url like the example below http://www.test.com/product-name/extra-keywords My question is since there is no difference between the pages http://www.test.com/product-name and http://www.test.com/product-name/extra-keywords and you don't leave the product page to reach the extra-keyword page is this really necessary? I feel like this is probably not a best practice. Thanks for any suggestions.
Algorithm Updates | | Sika220 -
Check canonicalization work implemented on URL
Hi I was wondering how to check canonicalization when it's not working properly - I am getting redirect from http://www to www but not from non www version to www version of URL) - so, how do I check the type of redirect in place already in the URL? Is there a tool for testing this? Thanks, Luke
Algorithm Updates | | McTaggart0 -
VRL Parameters Question - Exclude? or use a Canonical Tag?
I'm trying to figure something out, as I just finished my "new look" to an old website. It uses a custom built shopping cart, and the system worked pretty well until about a year when ranking went down. My primary traffic used to come from top level Brand pages. Each brand gets sorted by the shopping cart and a Parameter extension is added... So customers can click Page 1 , Page 2 , Page 3 etc. So for example : http://www.xyz.com/brand.html , http://www.xyz.com/brand.html?page=1 , http://www.xyz.com/brand.html?page=2 and so on... The page= is dynamic, therefore the page title, meta's, etc are the same, however the products displayed are different. I don't want to exclude the parameter page= completely, as the products are different on each page and obviously I would want the products to be indexed. However, at the same time my concern is that have these parameters might be causing some confusion an hence why I noticed a drop in google rankings. I also want to note - with my market, its not needed to break these pages up to target more specific keywords. Maybe using something like this would be the appropriate measure?
Algorithm Updates | | Southbay_Carnivorous_Plants0 -
Using the canonical tag across multiple domains...
Hi guys I am looking for some help in regards to using canonical tags in other domains that have similar content to our main site. Would this be the right way to go about it? For example www.main.com is the website i would like to achieve best ranking with, but i also have other websites, www.secondary.com and www.somethingelse.com which have similar content and all link back to www.main.com So in order to make sure the google bot knows these other pages are a reference to the main.com page can i put a canonical tag in secondary.com that goes like this: rel="canonical" href="www.main.com" /> and put that same tag in somethingelse.com Would i achieve a better ranking for doing so on main.com or am i on the wrong track and will doing so not change a thing? I hope I'm making sense 😉 Best regards, Manny
Algorithm Updates | | Manny20000 -
Why is my domain URL ranking instead of individual pages?
Hello, Google is ranking my homepage for many keywords instead of showing the various sites pages? Any idea why? Thanks, David
Algorithm Updates | | DavidSpivac0 -
What is the most optimal URL structure
A colleague and I are discussing the most optimal URL structure for both search engines and users. Our first disagreement comes in terms of files. So for instance if I have a small site, www.abc.com, with a service landing page and 3 specific services, which structure is preferred? www.abc.com/services/service1 www.abc.com/service1 The second issue is in terms of breaking up words in the URL. Should you use hyphens or not? Using the first example, which is preferred? www.abc.com/services/home-remodeling www.abc.com/services/homeremodeling. I'm also looking for articles/case studies that support either side. Thank you in advance for your help!
Algorithm Updates | | TheOceanAgency0