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?
-
Hi there,
First of all, its a mistake to think that when searching with _site: _operator, the first results are the most important nor the more relevant. Google has said a few times that we shouldn't rely that much on what that search in terms of what's being shown.
Blocking search results with robots.txt wont be of help, as it will not remove already indexed pages and cant prevent for new pages to be indexed (if there's an external link to a robots.txt blocked page, google can still index it) it'll only prevent Googlebot from discovering new ones FROM YOUR SITE.
Again, i'd try to dig deeper to understand where are the links to internal searches that google is finding. Googlebot will not do any search in your site.
The thing with GSC, might be related to quite a few reasons. I cant say much because I don't know any more specifics, but from what you are telling me it looks like you are getting impressions in searches that you don't relate to your site and that land on pages that google is noindexing. Yeah im repeating the obvious, hehe.
In my experience, Google can have these strange behaviours. You know, there are cases when a page is canonicalized, but it can still be shown in SERPS. Dont ask me why, but it happens. It takes a little time to google fully replace it with the correct one.
I'd wait a little longer to see how Google is handling them.I don't know if im helping you.
it kinda took me a few minutes to understand/process what you wrote and come up with an answer.Please, feel free ask again or comment on my reply if I misunderstood something.
Best luck,
Gaston -
Hi here's some more background info on this situation that makes it even stranger. I can perform some pretty specific searches on Google where these indexed search result pages show up. And I can look in Google Search Console under the performance section and see that those pages receive impressions and clicks. However, if I inspect the URL, Search Console says it is not included in Google's index, and the reason it gives under indexing is because it says it is honoring the canonical URL. So search console is saying it isn't indexed because of the canonical, but I can do searches and find that exact URL in the index. Any ideas what this could be from?
-
Hi Gaston,
Thanks for the response. I can confirm that the example, /search and /search?q=foo are pretty much identical. However that may not always be the case, only when a user searches for something that would return no results. So, a website that sells widgets, /search and /search?q=widgets would not be identical, and in that case it would make sense that Google would not honor the canonical link. What's really strange is if I search google for the site: operator of the domain, the top pages are not user queries for things that make sense. The top indexed pages are random, non-relevant user searches.
I do not have a way with this system to control noindex tags on these search result pages. The only thing I could do is take the nuclear option and just block it all with robots.txt using wildcards. But that means no search result pages would get indexed, relevant or not.
-
Hi there,
in my experience, when google doesn't honor Canonicals, is because pages arent similar.
In its definition, canonical are there for two or more pages that have the same content.If you are finding it problematic, i'd suggest to use noindex tags for that search pages.
I'd investigate If there are links pointing to those internal search pages, as its not common for google to discover search pages.Hope it helps,
Best luck.
Gaston
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
-
Self referencing canonicals AND duplicate URLs. Have I set them up correctly?
Hi team, We've recently redesigned our website. Originally we had separate product listings for every product. Even if there was one design in two colours, each colour had its own listing. With the redesign we merged all of these identical products to help with duplicate content. Customers can now browse the different stone colours available in that design from a single product listing (bottom left of screen under 'select a stone' on a product page) When the customer changes the stone colour, the product images change to the new colour and its product code is appended to the end of the existing URL. eg: http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/ (original listing) http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/?sku=JC1725BL (black selected) We have the following self referencing canonicals on all product pages [current-page:url:absolute], yet MOZ is telling me I have alot of duplicate content on pages with the above example. Have I implemented the canonicals correctly? Is this why Moz is flagging the listings as duplicate?
Technical SEO | | Jacobsheehan0 -
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
Canonical URLs in an eCommerce site
We have a website with 4 product categories (1. ice cream parlors, 2. frozen yogurt shops etc.). A few sub-categories (e.g. toppings, smoothies etc.) and the products contained in those are available in more than one product category (e.g. the smoothies are available in the "ice cream parlors" category, but also in the "frozen yogurt shops" category). My question: Unfortunately the website has been designed in a way that if a subcategory (e.g. smoothies) is available in more than 1 category, then itself (the subcategory page) + all its product pages will be automatically visible under various different urls. So now I have several urls for one and the same product: www.example.com/strawberry-smoothie|SMOOTHIES|FROZEN-YOGURT-SHOPS-391-2-5 and http://www.example.com/strawberry-smoothie|SMOOTHIES|ICE-CREAM-PARLORS-391-1-5 And also several ones for one and the same sub-category (they all include exactly the same set of products): http://www.example.com/SMOOTHIES-1-12-0-4 (the smoothies contained in the ice cream parlors category) http://www.example.com/SMOOTHIES-2-12-0-4 (the same smoothies, contained in the frozen yogurt shops category) This is happening with around 100 pages. I would add canonical tags to the duplicates, but I'm afraid that by doing so, the category (frozen yogurt shops) that contains several non-canonical sub-categories (smoothies, toppings etc.) , might not show up anymore in search results or become irrelevant for Google when searching for example for "products for frozen yoghurt shops". Do you know if this would be actually the case? I hope I explained it well..
Technical SEO | | Gabriele_Layoutweb0 -
Why are Google search results different if you are log'd into Google or not?
I get different results when I'm log'd into my Google account associated with my website than if I'm not. The same country is occurring. So how can I rely on the google results I'm seeing? For instance my site is page 1 with the improvements I made based on SEOMOZ if I'm log'd in. Yet I'm not on the first 25 pages if I'm not logged in.
Technical SEO | | Romana0 -
Multiple URLs
I'm trying to check the URLs of this site- http://www.ofo.com.au, and I see that their old site has 301 re-directed to it...but the site http://ofo.com.au and http://outdoorfurnitureoutlet.com.au are both still up and I can't see any 301 redirects from them. Is it a problem even if when I do a site: search for them I get no results?
Technical SEO | | UnaRealidad0 -
Rel Canonical Question
I changed /tulsa-cleaning-services/ to /services/ because the URLs were getting too long. Now I'm getting an error for Appropriate use of Rel Canonical. I used a 301 to send old links to the new location. Any ideas? Thanks! Will www.americancarpetclean.com
Technical SEO | | WillWatrous0 -
Canonical - how can you tell if page is appearing duplicate in Google?
Our home page file is www.ides.com/default.asp and appears in Google as www.ides.com. Would it be a good thing for us to include the following tag in the head section of our website homepage?
Technical SEO | | Prospector-Plastics0 -
301 an old URL with a ? in the URL?
I am redoing a site and the URL's are changing structure. The client's site was in magento and in the store they would get two URLs, for example: /store/categoryname/productname and /store/categoryname/productname?SID=dslkajsfdoiu947598whouieht983hg98 Do I have to 301 redirect both of these URL's to their new counterpart? Both go to the same content but magento seemed to add these SIDs into the navigation and Google has both versions in the index.
Technical SEO | | DanDeceuster0