Can I use canonical tags to merge property map pages and availability pages to their counterpart overview pages?
-
I have a property website, for each property are 4-5 tabs each with their own URL, these pages include the overview page which is content rich, and auxilliary pages such as maps, availability, can I use a canonical tag to merge the tabs with very little content to their corresponding overview page which is content rich?
I.e.
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/overview
This page has tabs for map, town info, availability which all have their own url i.e.
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/map
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/availability
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/towninfoBecause these auxilary pages do not contain much content can I place a canonical tag in them pointing back to the content rich overview page at www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/overview?
-
I'd just add that if the solution chosen is noindex, to do the noindex, follow method, just to give the extra cue if there are links on those pages.
-
You could "noindex" them, which would mean search indexes would not list the content of those pages.
Keep in mind that Google doesn't penalize you for having little content, as long as it is unique. The challenge is found when you have a small amount of content wrapped in a page with a header, footer and sidebar with identical content as the rest of the site. If you do a word count you may find the overwhelming percent of that page's content is duplicate, which is a concern.
If you offered a blank page with a map that said "Map of 1000 block of Sesame Street taken January 2011" along with the image then you could index that page if you felt that might be something people might be interested in.
The determination you need to make is whether the content is of value to users. Is anyone likely to want to find these maps or other information directly from a search engine? If the answer is no, then it's fine to block them either in robots.txt or with a noindex tag.
-
So, for the pages with little content, should I just nofollow them so that they are not a part of the indexed site structure? These pages have very little content i.e. the maps page, so should I just add an exclusion to the page or the robots.txt file
-
In short, No.
Canonicals are designed to merge multiple URLs to the same page. For example if you have an "availability" page which can be sorted, your URLs might be:
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/availability
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/availability/
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/availability/?sort_asc_field=price
www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/availability/?sorc_desc_field=price
Those four URLs all lead to the identical page. By using a canonical identifying "www.mywebsite.co.uk/property-1/availability" as your site's main page, it avoids confusion. All your link juice will apply to a single page, and Google will consistently direct users to the correct version of the page.
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
-
Rel=canonical on landing page question
Currently we have two versions of a category page on our site (listed below) Version A: www.example.com/category • lives only in the SERPS but does not live on our site navigation • has links • user experience is not the best Version B: www.example.com/category?view=all • lives in our site navigation • has a rel=canonical to version A • very few links and doesn’t appear in the SERPS • user experience is better than version A Because the user experience of version B is better than version A I want to take out the rel=canonical in version B to version A and instead put a rel=canonical to version B in version A. If I do this will version B show up in the SERPS eventually and replace version A? If so, how long do you think this would take? Will this essentially pass page rank from version A to version B
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Why Can't Googlebot Fetch Its Own Map on Our Site?
I created a custom map using google maps creator and I embedded it on our site. However, when I ran the fetch and render through Search Console, it said it was blocked by our robots.txt file. I read in the Search Console Help section that: 'For resources blocked by robots.txt files that you don't own, reach out to the resource site owners and ask them to unblock those resources to Googlebot." I did not setup our robtos.txt file. However, I can't imagine it would be setup to block google from crawling a map. i will look into that, but before I go messing with it (since I'm not familiar with it) does google automatically block their maps from their own googlebot? Has anyone encountered this before? Here is what the robot.txt file says in Search Console: User-agent: * Allow: /maps/api/js? Allow: /maps/api/js/DirectionsService.Route Allow: /maps/api/js/DistanceMatrixService.GetDistanceMatrix Allow: /maps/api/js/ElevationService.GetElevationForLine Allow: /maps/api/js/GeocodeService.Search Allow: /maps/api/js/KmlOverlayService.GetFeature Allow: /maps/api/js/KmlOverlayService.GetOverlays Allow: /maps/api/js/LayersService.GetFeature Disallow: / Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup1 -
Getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as duplicate pages and duplicate page titles can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what might I be missing?
I am getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as reporting both duplicate pages and duplicate page titles on crawl results, I can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what am I be missing? Has anyone else had a similar issue, how was it corrected?
Technical SEO | | tgwebmaster0 -
Duplicated rel=author tags (x 3) on WordPress pages, any issue with this?
Hi,
Technical SEO | | jeffwhitfield
We seem to have duplicated rel=author tags (x 3) on WordPress pages, as we are using Yoast WordPress SEO plugin which adds a rel=author tag into the head of the page and Fancier Author Box plugin which seems to add a further two rel=author tags toward the bottom of the page. I checked the settings for Fancier Author Box and there doesn't seem to be the option to turn rel=author tags off; we need to keep this plugin enabled as we want the two tab functionality of the author bio and latest posts. All three rel=author tags seem to be correctly formatted and Google Structured Data Testing Tool shows that all authorship rel=author markup is correct; is there any issue with having these duplicated rel=author tags on the WordPress pages?
I tried searching the Q&A but couldn't find anything similar enough to what I'm asking above. Many thanks in advance and kind regards.0 -
Can Page Content & Description Have Same Content?
I'm studying my crawl report and there are several warnings regarding missing meta descriptions. My website is built in WordPress and part of the site is a blog. Several of these missing description warnings are regarding blog posts and I was wondering if I am able to copy the first few lines of content of each of the posts to put in the meta description, or would that be considered duplicate content? Also, there are a few warnings that relate to blog index pages, e.g. http://www.iainmoran.com/2013/02/ - I don't know if I can even add a description of these as I think they are dynamically created? While on the subject of duplicate content, if I had a sidebar with information on several of the pages (same info) while the content would be coming from a WP Widget, would this still be considered duplicate content and would Google penalise me for it? Would really appreciate some thoughts on this,please. Thanks, Iain.
Technical SEO | | iainmoran0 -
Duplicate title-tags with pagination and canonical
Some time back we implemented the Google recommendation for pagination (the rel="next/prev"). GWMT now reports 17K pages with duplicate title-tags (we have about 1,1m products on our site and about 50m pages indexed in Google) As an example we have properties listed in various states and the category title would be "Properties for Sale in [state-name]". A paginated search page or browsing a category (see also http://searchengineland.com/implementing-pagination-attributes-correctly-for-google-114970) would then include the following: The title for each page is the same - so to avoid the duplicate title-tags issue, I would think one would have the following options: Ignore what Google says Change the canonical to http://www.site.com/property/state.html (which would then only show the first XX results) Append a page number to the title "Properties for Sale in [state-name] | Page XX" Have all paginated pages use noindex,follow - this would then result in no category page being indexed Would you have the canonical point to the individual paginated page or the base page?
Technical SEO | | MagicDude4Eva2 -
Schema Tags Configuration - Ecommerce Category Pages
I'm semi confident that some schema tags are implemented correctly on our ecommerce category pages.. but I would just like to double check. An example url http://www.freshcargo.co.uk/shoes I have just fixed some errors using the Google rich snippets tool... but the thing I'm not sure about is why the prices are being displayed as seperate items Eg: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freshcargo.co.uk%2Fshoes&view= Thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | edwardlewis0 -
Rel-canonical tag
Hi, I'm having some confusion with the rel-canonical tag. A few months ago we implemented the rel-canonical tag because we had many errors specifically duplicate page content come upon the SEOmoz web app (mostly because we use tracking code). I had asked what to do about this and was advised by the SEOmoz web app to implement the rel-canonical tag. However, when I'm working on the Keyword Optimizer Tool, it always checks off that I'm using the rel-canonical tag improperly, and then when I go into our sites' CMS for that page and uncheck "Use Canonical URL", the keyword optimizer tool up's my grade for that correction/that I've made an improvement. So my question is if the page I'm working on is the one I want search engines to find, should I not be using the Canonical URL tag? Should the Canonical URL tag only be used on URL's with the tracking code?
Technical SEO | | aircyclemegan0