Should I canonicalize URLs with no query params even though query params are always automatically appended?
-
There's a section of my client's website that presents quarterly government financial data. Users can filter results to see different years and quarters of financial info.
If a user navigates to those pages, the URLs automatically append the latest query parameters. It's not a redirect...when I asked a developer what the mechanism was for this happening, he said "magic." He honestly didn't know how to describe it.
So my question is, is it ok to canonicalize the URL without any query parameters, knowing that the user will always be served a page that does have query parameters? I need to figure out how to manage all of the various versions of these URLs.
-
This is VERY helpful, thank you so much.
-
I would recommend to canonicalize these to a version of the page without query strings, IF you are not trying to optimize different version of the page for different keyword searches, and/or if the content doesn't change in a way which is significant for purpose of SERP targeting. From what you described, I think those are the case, and so I would canonicalize to a version without the query strings.
An example where you would NOT want to do that would be on an ecommerce site where you have a URL like www.example.com/product-detail.jsp?pid=1234. Here, the query string is highly relevant and each variation should be indexed uniquely for different keywords, assuming the values of "pid" each represent unique products. Another example would be a site of state-by-state info pages like www.example.com/locations?state=WA. Once again, this is an example where the query strings are relevant, and should be part of the canonical.
But, in any case a canonical should still be used, to remove extraneous query strings, even in the cases above. For example, in addition to the "pid" or "state" query strings, you might also find links which add tracking data like "utm_source", etc. And you want to make sure to canonicalize just to the level of the page which you want in the search engine's index.
You wrote that the query strings and page content vary based on years and quarters. If we assume that you aren't trying to target search terms with the year and quarter in them, then I would canonicalize to the URL without those strings (or to a default set). But if you are trying to target searches for different years and quarters in the user's search phrase, then not only would you include those in the canonical URL, but you would also need to vary enough page content (meta data, title, and on-page content) to avoid being flagged as duplicates.
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
-
Which product URL to include in Sitemaps?
Hi Does the product URL's in Sitemaps affect the sub-categories authority too? For example, if I have a product with 2 URL's and which have a canonical tag: **/brands/michael-kors/bags/**jet-set-double-zip-wallet/ **/women/accessories/wallets/**jet-set-double-zip-wallet/ If I make the main URL "/women/accessories/wallets/jet-set-double-zip-wallet/" and set that as the Canonical URL & list that URL in the XML Sitemap, will it also mean the "/women/accessories/wallets/" category will get more authority and increase it's power to rank? Thanks Frankie
Technical SEO | | Frankie-BTDublin0 -
URL ASCII Characters Issue
Hi guys; Is there any different between URL whit capital ASCII code and URL with small ASCII Code? For example I have 2 URLS for one page like this: 1- 332-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B5%DB%8C%D9%84-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7.html 2- 332-%d8%aa%d8%ad%d8%b5%db%8c%d9%84-%d8%af%d8%b1-%da%a9%d8%a7%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%af%d8%a7.html both of them point to same page but no 1 is non SSL and no 2 is ssl version! and whole pges of site forces to https
Technical SEO | | seoiransite0 -
Google is not indexing my new URL structure. Why not?
Hi all, We launched a new website for a customer on April 29th. That same day we resubmitted the new sitemap & asked Google to fetch the new website. Screenshot is attached of this (GWT Indexed). However, when I look at Google Index (see attachment - Google Index), Automated Production's old website URL's still appear. It's been two weeks. Is it normal for Google's index to take this long to update? Thanks for your help. Cole VoLPjhy vfxVUsO
Technical SEO | | ColeLusby0 -
Htaccess query
I'm currently working on a live version of a clients website which has duplication issues. With .htaccess, I need to rewrite URL's of the following format: vacancy.php?id=802 to vacancy/?id=802 I tried adding the following line but it returned a 500, and don't want to keep taking the site out. RewriteRule ^vacancy/?id=([0-9]+)$ vacancy.php?id=$1 [R=301, L]
Technical SEO | | AndrewAkesson0 -
Multiple URLs and Dup Content
Hi there, I know many people might ask this kind of question, but nevertheless .... 🙂 In our CMS, one single URL (http://www.careers4women.de/news/artikel/206/) has been produced nearly 9000 times with strings like this: http://www.careers4women.de/news/artikel/206/$12203/$12204/$12204/ and this http://www.careers4women.de/news/artikel/206/$12203/$12204/$12205/ and so on and so on... Today, I wrote our IT-department to either a) delete the pages with the "strange" URLs or b) redirect them per 301 onto the "original" page. Do you think this was the best solution? What about implementing the rel=canonical on these pages? Right now, there is only the "original" page in the Google index, but who knows? And I don't want users on our site to see these URLs, so I thought deleting them (they exist only a few days!) would be the best answer... Do you agree or have other ideas if something like this happens next time? Thanx in advance...
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
/$1 URL Showing Up
Whenever I crawl my site with any kind of bot or a sitemap generator over my site. it comes up with /$1 version of my URLs. For example: It gives me hdiconference.com & hdiconference.com/$1 and hdiconference.com/purchases & hdiconference.com/purchases/$1 Then I get warnings saying that it's duplicate content. Here's the problem: I can't find these /$1 URLs anywhere. Even when I type them in, I get a 404 error. I don't know what they are, where they came from, and I can't find them when I scour my code. So, I'm trying to figure out where the crawlers are picking this up. Where are these things? If sitemap generators and other site crawlers are seeing them, I have to assume that Googlebot is seeing them as well. Any help? My developers are at a loss as well.
Technical SEO | | HDI0 -
How do you manage Wordpress URL hierarchy with permalinks?
I have quite a few website in Wordpress but I continuously run into the same issue. With permalinks it is not recommended to use /%category%/%post_name%/ because it puts an undue load on your bandwidth, server and makes the crawler crawl a ton of duplicate content pages. On one site changing to that hierarchy even crashed some of the pages (probably a permissions error). I would like a correct information hierarchy, but this doesn't seem like correct play. What do you use as your URL hierarchy?
Technical SEO | | MarloSchneider
Do you have any plugins or fixes for this issue? Thanks0 -
Should I use www. or not in my main URL?
I have backlinks coming into my homepage, which has both a www. URL and one that's merely http://mysite.com. Which is the preferred URL for best optimization for search engines and how do I find this out?
Technical SEO | | NetPicks0