Is it a good idea to rel=canonical dozens of old outdated pages?
-
we have dozens old outdated manual pages that still need to be up, but have terrible code issues (they're exported from word) and no image tagging, etc.
there are new pages in place, so should i rel=canonical to the new pages? will this transfer any link juice to the newer, more seo-friendly ones?
-
If there are newer pages in place, and the newer pages cover the same topic, then yes you should canonical the older, outdated pages to the new pages. I would normally suggest to replace these older pages but you shared they "still need to be up" so the canonical tag would be the next best solution.
Using the canonical tag will allow most of the link juice from the older pages to flow to the newer pages.
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
-
Old Blog Posts
Every single day we publish articles that have a high amount of engagement onsite 50-300 comments. We have been running for around 8 years now and have a rather bloated database of old stale posts. We post advice on betting on sports. Not guides as such but tips for events. After the event has started the posts are outdated. What is your advice for these? These articles are not seen as "thin" but rather outdated. There is no way possible for me to update the content as such. Also out right deleting the content would go against our openness and transparency of past selections advised.
On-Page Optimization | | MrDeeBee0 -
Ecommerce Canonical Question
Hi all, first question (eek) Could I pick the brains of fellow users around an issue we are having with canonical urls on a magento website. At the moment we do not have these enabled as it seems to break our indexing. Cut a long story short, we have thousands of products but haven't rewritten many of the descriptions from the manufacturers yet and so have noindexed all the product pages (freeing them as we go). The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site. For example, if you go to Dresses, there then are several filtering options which would allow you to choose a colour, shape and material - if you wished to filter that precisely. These filtering options are all crawlable and so we would then have a page that google could index for, for example, Green Lace Maxi Dress. All good there, few people search for specific products and a lot search for types of products so we are covered. To get back to the issue at hand. If we enable the canonical option on our magento plugin it will stop us from being able to target these terms. Whereas the filtering option would create domain.com/dress/green/maxi/lace with the page title of Green Lace Maxi Dress, if we enable the canonical part of the seo plugin the canonical link which would be added to the page would be - instantly removing our ability to rank for longer tail dress related searches (we are not going to compete with the big players on the premium terms, yet!). There are alternative plugins we can buy for magento to add the correct tag, however, if every page's canonical just points back it itself like this, is there really much point spending nearly $1000 on the 4 licences we would need to cover our range of sites. Is it really necessary, in this case, that we have a canonical for the product filtering? Sorry for the long post, hope it made sense. Thanks for any assistance.
On-Page Optimization | | DSCarl0 -
Can you use the canonical tag and rel=next and rel=prev on category pages.
We have a conflict of information between our web developers and our SEO company. We are an on-line retail company hence we have a fair number of different categories. Our site is set up with the rel=next and rel=prev tags. Our SEO company have asked us to implement canonical links on our category pages and leave the rel=next and rel=prev tags as they are. Our web developers are saying by doing this we are asking Google to ignore all of our products on all of the pages except page 1 which would mean Google would not index a lot of our products. I have looked at a few articles but I am struggling to understand which way to go. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | Palmbourne0 -
Rel = no follow?
I am redoing a clients website. They previous company that built it have a page with links linking back to over 30 articles on webmd Question is this doing any good for SEO and if I recreate, should these have the rel=no follow attribute?
On-Page Optimization | | scott315
Here is is current page http://www.forestparkdental.com/links/ Thanks0 -
Sold Property Page
I have a real estate agent property website. What should I do with the sold property page. Should I remove the page entirely since the page has no more use for user. Currently the page is still exist, but only with word "This property is currently not available/sold"
On-Page Optimization | | odihost10 -
On-page: Over optimized images?
Hello guys. I have a small question about an on-page optimization for images. What I have: good title tag / good url structure good content (NOT keyword shuffled, its real content, for real people) images / gallery uploaded to folder named same as article name. For example: Great tips for bloggers [article name], great-tips-for-bloggers [folder name]. So my question is: Will Google harm me for this "too good" paths to images, article related image filenames, with mask like [gtips-img01], and if all images have titles / alt tags? Thank you guys.
On-Page Optimization | | infoo130 -
Blog page outranks static page for KW -- why?
Blog page ranks 10 in Google, while the static page is on page 7. What makes it more interesting is that the blog page scores an "F" with the Term Target tool while the static page scores an "A". Static page has more inbound links and a mR/mT of 3.89/ 4.54 vs. 3.71/ 4.14 for the blog page. Any ideas on how to approach this one?
On-Page Optimization | | 540SEO0 -
Rel Canonical
I will be quick and to the point. I am clearly a novice. I received a notice on my seomoz account that I had 12 pages with a Rel Canonical issue. It seems serious. Can this be a quick fix? Any thoughts? Below is the site address. petbarnpdx.com Thanks in advance for any input on this! Dave
On-Page Optimization | | APICDA0