Rel="canonical" link should they be to or from an "SEO friendly" url
-
Thanks for taking the time to review this.
So for our example, lets use the following SEO friendly link:
We'll call this link the SEO VERSION
The title of the college is" Pacific Christian College of Minstry and Biblical Studies"
The title of the program is "BA Biblical Studies"
The QUERY version of the link to this page would be something like:
Keep in mind that the meta title, description, and keyword tags for the page are all administerable
The SEO VERSION is automatically created from the title of the college, and the title of the program. Each one of these titles can be overidden with a URL slug individually. For instance, the admin could make the link:
by changing the slug for the college to "pacific-christian-college-of-ministry" and the slug for the program to "biblical-studies". Let's call this version the SLUG VERSION
So now we have multiple ways to get to the same content. The question on the table is what is best practice for the rel="canonical" link to keep from getting dinged for duplicate content.
Let's say that our SEO VERSION is the canonical link for 1 year. Then the choice was made to optimize the links thru the slugs creating the SLUG VERSION. My assumption is that we would keep the SEO VERSION as the canonical link.
But then let's say 6 months later that the title of the program is changed in the admin. Now the SEO VERSION has changed and so has the canonical link. Do we lose the link juice garnered over the last 18 months?
It would seem to me, that if we use the QUERY version as the canonical link, then any optimizations or changes affect everything except the canonical link, thus keeping the previous link juice earned. But is having an ugly URL as the canonical link detrimental to SEO?
Please advise.
-
Jeff's spot on. Come up with the briefest visitor readable URL that fits the proper understanding of the page identity along with its hierarchical relationship to content above it in that funnel. That's the URL that should be referenced in the canonical tag as well as links pointing to the page. If for some reason months or years later that URL needs to change (because the program name changes for some reason for example), then make that change and implement a 301 redirect to that new URL to pass any previously accumulated link value.
-
Robert-
My advice: use the URL structure for the canonical link that does not contain the name-value pairs, such as:
http://www.domain.com/URL-structure/avoid-name-value-pairs/Don't use the more complicated one like this:
http://www.domain.com/search-query-result.php?id=123&page=42&query=should-you-avoid-name-value-pairs-in-SEO-urlsInstead, go with a short, human readable URL for your canonical link, and you'll have better results.
Here's why I'm making this recommendation:
In the Moz.com guide to the basics of SEO: http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo/basics-of-search-engine-friendly-design-and-development, I'd recommend looking at their URL Construction Guidelnes:
Go static
The best URLs are human readable without lots of parameters, numbers and symbols. Using technologies like mod_rewrite for Apache and ISAPI_rewrite for Microsoft, you can easily transform dynamic URLs like this http://moz.com/blog?id=123 into a more readable static version like this: http://moz.com/blog/google-fresh-factor. Even single dynamic parameters in a URL can result in lower overall ranking and indexing.
According to Google's Official Google Webmaster Central blog:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html"static URLs might have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates because users can easily read the urls"
Myth: "Dynamic URLs are okay if you use fewer than three parameters."
Fact: There is no limit on the number of parameters, but a good rule of thumb would be to keep your URLs shortHope this helps!
-- Jeff
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
-
Canonicals
I dynamically generated pages using rewrite functions in wordpress (new-york, san-diego, san-francisco). All these pages look the same but with different content. yoast (seo wordpress plugin) was unaware of this and set canonicals up relating to the wordpress page used as the template page for the dynamic pages (City_home_page). so all these pages had the canonical https://dinnerdancecruises.com/City_Home_Page. using search console, i saw google indexed my site, looked at all these dynamically created pages (which is about 30 pages) and took them all in as duplicate pages. this happen sometime in april or may. I fixed this problem and set unique canonicals up for each dynamically created page. but now google is not crawling them for some reason. im not sure why its been months and these pages are not indexed. i thought to myself is it because these links end up on multiple pages? sort of like having "terms of agreement" link at the footer. every single page has that terms of agreement link. does google look at those links as duplicates and not index the page at all. this is where my issue lies. i need google to crawl regularly and see those pages with their new, unique canonicals and re-index them correctly. but it seems to save cpu resources, google feels once a thief always a thief. i could be wrong but this is why i need your suggestion. thank you.
On-Page Optimization | | bobperez7360950 -
One more question about rel=canonical
I'm still trying to wrap my head around rel=canonical and its importance. Thanks to the community, I've been able to understand most of it. Still, I have a couple of very specific questions: I share certain blog posts on the Huffington Post. Here's an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cedric-lizotte/munich-travel-guide_b_13438956.html - Of course I post these on my blog as well. Here: http://www.continentscondiments.com/things-munich-classics/ - Obviously the HuffPo has a huge DA, and I'll never match it. However the original post is mine, on my blog, and not on the HuffPo. They wont - obviously - add a rel=canonical just for me and for the sake of it, they have a million other things to do. QUESTION: Should I add a rel=canonical to my own site pointing to the post on the HuffPost? What would be the advantage? Should I just leave this alone? I share blog posts on Go4TravelBlog too. Example: http://www.go4travelblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-munich/ - but, once again, the original post is on one of my blogs. In this case, it's on another blog of mine: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-in-munich/ QUESTION: Well it's pretty much the same! Should I beg Go4TravelBlog to add a rel=canonical pointing to mine? If they refuse, what do I do? Would it be better to add a rel=canonical from my site to theirs, or do I fight it out and have a rel=canonical pointing to my own post? Why? Thanks a million for your help!
On-Page Optimization | | cedriklizotte0 -
SEO JOB
I am looking to hire someone who could help me to rank my page better: pediatric-dentist.org. If you are looking for a job and think you might be able to help me out please let me know thanks. I am looking to hire someone ASAP who could start ASAP. Good SEO practice for both of us. Thank you,
On-Page Optimization | | help4561 -
"Turning off" content to a site
One site I manage has a lot of low quality content. We are in the process of improving the overall site content but we have "turned off" a large portion of our content by setting 2/3 of the posts to draft. Has anyone done this before or had experience with doing something similar? This quote from Bruce Clay comes to mind: “Where a lot of people don’t understand content factoring to this is having 100 great pages and 100 terrible pages—they average, when the quality being viewed is your website,” he explained. “So, it isn’t enough to have 100 great pages if you still have 100 terrible ones, and if you add another 100 great pages, you still have the 100 terrible ones dragging down your average. In some cases we have found that it’s much better, to improve your ranking, to actually remove or rewrite the terrible ones than add more good ones.” What are your thoughts? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | ThridHour0 -
Too Many on page links! Will "NoFollow" for navigation help?
I am getting to many on page links ( for all my pages). Here is my website: http://www.websterpowerproducts.co.uk I think it is to do with the the navigation bar down the right hand side. I don't really want to get ride of this as it offers users a way of getting where they want without lots of clicking. I was wondering if adding a "NoFollow" tag to each of they links would stop the link juice getting diluted by the navigation bar. Many Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | WebsterPowerTools0 -
2 Duplicate pages. One Showing "/"
In SEOMoz report I have 2 pages showing that are identical in name/URL apart from the fact that one ends with the / symbol and one doesnt'. They are both showing as having too many on-page links. But one shows 106 links and the other shows 106. In clients' admin section I can only find evidence of the page without the /. I wonder if anyone could advise how best to move forward? Colin
On-Page Optimization | | NileCruises0 -
Encouraging users to "like" or "+1" our pages
Do you think its "bad" SEO or maybe google might penalize if we encourage users to like or pages or give us +1 for google?
On-Page Optimization | | cbielich0 -
On page links?
Hi all, Ive be going through the pages in my site getting rid of errors so i can the work of a clean slate and get the best for my site. However, i have a large amount of pages which is flagged up by seo moz pro tool as too many on page links. How bad is this in terms of seo rankings? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | wazza19850