Is this an ideal rel=canonical situation?
-
Hey Moz community,
Thanks for taking time to answer my question.
I'm working directly with a hospital that has several locations across the country. They've copied the same content over to each of their websites. Could I point the search engines back to a singular location (URL) using the rel=canonical tag?
In addition, does the rel=canonical tag affect the search engine rankings of the URLs (about 13 of them) that use the rel=canonical tag?
If I'm on track, is there an ideal URL (location) to decide has the original content?
This is actually the first time I've ever needed to use rel=canonical (if applicable).
Thanks so much.
Cole
-
Hi Cole,
Unfortunately there is a solution for this for international duplication but not national. If we were talking about international locations, the solution is the hreflang tag. I'll link to it here just in case it's of use in the future: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en
Nationally, canonicalisation will remove the non-canonical versions from the index and of course from rankings, as Chris has said.
I've looked at medical queries in the past, and Google is very adept at taking IP into account when returning results, the fact that it thinks my IP is located an hour's drive south of here notwithstanding
I would say that re-written content is your best bet if you can't use one page listing multiple locations (highly unlikely) and truly need separate sites for all 13. There can be a little cross-over / duplication without causing too much worry, but I would be concerned that Google is not good enough at a national level to differentiate between duplicates in the same way it can do this for internationalisation.
-
Hey Chris,
Thanks for the response.
I do not see any solutions here to be honest other than write the content over again.
Considering Google takes your IP Address location into consideration when you search a term such as "hospitals," I want each location to be able to rank for our list of target keywords. Thus, the rel=canonical may not be an option at this point.
Can anyone else comment on the ranking of pages (with duplicate content)?
Thanks again.
Cole
-
Hiya Cole,
Thanks for taking the time to write to us!
Well you can point them all to one site _but_the side affect of this would be the other sites might not rank, this could be problematic if e.g someone wanted to look for the content locally like "hospitals in London" (I'm not sure whats duplicated so use your imagination bit!). If you do implement the redirect across sites it's also a good idea to put a link on the page pointing towards the original content.
There is some great info on the tag here :
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization
Other options that might help you is to rewrite the content, block the page in robots (bit harsh though). remove the content and just point the link to one but giving it a bit of a boost. 301 the users and bots to original content. I'm sure there are lots of other options and the choice is yours.
I hope some of that info will get you started, to be honest it may just be easier to use the tag along with just reiterating it with a link. This is helpful if you're not fussed by any index issues for the hospitals.
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
-
What could cause Google to not honor canonical URLs?
I have a strange situation on a website, when I do a Google query of site:example.com all the top indexed results appear to be queries that users can perform on the website. So any random term the user searches for on the website for some reason is causing the search result page to get indexed - like example.com/search/query/random-keywords However, the search results page has a canonical tag on it that points to example.com/search, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything. Any thoughts or ideas why this could be happening?
Technical SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
What is the correct Canonical tag on m.site?
We have 2 separate sites for desktop (www.example.com) and mobile (m.example.com) As per the guideline, we have added Rel=alternate tag on www.example.com to point to mobile URL(m.example.com) and Rel=canonical tag on m.example.com to point to Desktop site(www.example.com).However, i didn't find any guideline on what canonical tag we should add ifFor Desktop sitewww.example.com/PageA - has a canonical tag to www.example.com/PageBOn this page, we have a Rel=alternate tag m.example.com/pageAWhat will be the canonical we should add for the mobile version of Page Am.example.com/PageA - Canonical tag point to www.example.com/PageA -or www.example.com/PageB?Kalpesh
Technical SEO | | kguard0 -
Duplicate Title Tags and Meta Desc even with the correct Canonical Tag
I show a large/growing number of duplicate title tags and duplicate meta descriptions in my webmaster tools. I look at both pages Link 1 - http://www.thatsmytopper.com/wedding-cake-toppers/theme-cake-toppers/beach-theme-cake-toppers/where/color/petal-pink.html Link 2 - http://www.thatsmytopper.com/wedding-cake-toppers/theme-cake-toppers/beach-theme-cake-toppers/where/color/petal-pink/limit/16.html Both pages have the following canonical url: <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.thatsmytopper.com/wedding-cake-toppers/theme-cake-toppers/beach-theme-cake-toppers.html" > Why does this show up as a duplicate title tag and description to Google still?
Technical SEO | | bhalverson0 -
Similar pages: noindex or rel:canonical or disregard parameters?!
Hey all! We have a hotel booking website that has search results pages per destinations (e.g. hotels in NYC is dayguest.com/nyc). Pages are also generated for destinations depending on various parameters, that can be star rating, amenities, style of the properties, etc. (e.g. dayguest.com/nyc/4stars, dayguest.com/nyc/luggagestorage, dayguest.com/nyc/luxury, etc.). In general, all of these pages are very similar, as for example, there might be 10 hotels in NYC and all of them will offer luggage storage. Pages can be nearly identical. Come the problems of duplicate content and loss of juice by dilution. I was wondering what was the best practice in such a situation: should I just put all pages except the most important ones (e.g. dayguest.com/nyc) as noindex? Or set it as canonical page for all variations? Or in google webmaster tool ask google to disregard the URLs for various parameters? Or do something else altogether?! Thanks for the help!
Technical SEO | | Philoups0 -
Rel next prev, should i nofollow pagination links
Hi Everyone. When implementing rel next and prev on pagination pages, should I make the pagination links themselves no followed? Have seen people saying yes and no so just want a final answer! Thanks
Technical SEO | | Sayers0 -
Should I be using use rel=author in this case?
We have a large blog, which it appears one of our regional blogs (managed separately) is simply scraping content off of our blog and adding it to theirs. Would adding rel=author (for all of our guest bloggers) help eliminate google seeing the regional blog content as scraped or duplicate? Is rel=author the best solution here?
Technical SEO | | VistageSEO0 -
Canonical URL
In our campaign, I see this notices Tag value
Technical SEO | | shebinhassan
florahospitality.com/ar/careers.aspx Description
Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. What does it mean? Because If I try to view the source code of our site, it clearly gives me the canonical url.0 -
Problem with canonical url and session ids
Hi, i have a problem with the following website: http://goo.gl/EuF4E Google always indexes the site with session-id, although i use canonical url in this page. Indexed sites: http://goo.gl/RQnaD Sometimes it goes right, but sometimes wrong. Is it because we separate our session-id with ";" as separator? In the Google Webmaster Tools, i can´t choose jsessid as a parameter, so i think google does not recognize this. But if we have to change it (f.e. ? as separator) we have to spend many days in programming. Any ideas? thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | tdberlin0