To "Rel canon" or not to "Rel canon" that is the question
-
Looking for some input on a SEO situation that I'm struggling with. I guess you could say it's a usability vs Google situation. The situation is as follows:
On a specific shop (lets say it's selling t-shirts). The products are sorted as follows each t-shit have a master and x number of variants (a color).
we have a product listing in this listing all the different colors (variants) are shown. When you click one of the t-shirts (eg: blue) you get redirected to the product master, where some code on the page tells the master that it should change the color selectors to the blue color. This information the page gets from a query string in the URL.
Now I could let Google index each URL for each color, and sort it out that way. except for the fact that the text doesn't change at all. Only thing that changes is the product image and that is changed with ajax in such a way that Google, most likely, won't notice that fact. ergo producing "duplicate content" problems.
Ok! So I could sort this problem with a "rel canon" but then we are in a situation where the only thing that tells Google that we are talking about a blue t-shirt is the link to the master from the product listing.
We end up in a situation where the master is the only one getting indexed, not a problem except for when people come from google directly to the product, I have no way of telling what color the costumer is looking for and hence won't know what image to serve her.
Now I could tell my client that they have to write a unique text for each varient but with 100 of thousands of variant combinations this is not realistic ir a real good solution.
I kinda need a new idea, any input idea or brain wave would be very welcome.
-
Unfortunately, there are still a lot of gaps in how Google handles even the typical e-commerce site. Even issues like search pagination are incredibly complicated on large sites, and Google's answers are inconsistent at best. The only thing I'd say for sure is that I no longer believe the "let us handle it" advice. I've seen it go wrong too many times. I've become a big believer in controlling your own indexation.
-
I completely agree on every point (as I tried to explain above) and I could not myself come up with a better solution, but thought I might give you guys a chance before jumping the rel-canon band wagon
To be honest I didn't expect any amazing ideas but one could hope that I hadn't thought about everything, unfortunately it seems I had.
thx for your time everyone
-
I'm afraid there's no perfect solution. The canonical tag probably is the best bet here - the risk of letting thousands of near-duplicates into the index is much greater than the cost of not landing people on specific colors.
Keep in mind that, once Google removes the color variants, only the "master" product page will appear in search. So, users won't really come into the site with a color intent (except in their heads). Whether that's good or bad for usability isn't clear. On the one hand, it would be nice to rank for every color and have users with a color in mind land on that specific product. On the other hand, some users don't have a color in mind (they know what they like when they see it), and landing on the main product pages shows them all available options. It really depends on your customers, but there are pros and cons, in terms of usability and conversion.
There's no magic Option #3, though - I'm 99% confident saying that. The risks of indexing all color variants post-Panda are relatively high, and I think you'll gain more from consolidating than you'll lose by leaving them all.
-
Hi and thx for your reply.
I agree with you, as I tried to explain in my post. But this doesn't really help me with the users from Google not getting served with the correct picture. Possible leading to a high bounce rate. Plus I have the added problem that Google will see the master as less relevant for the colors as keywords. Since the keyword won't be in the page title, h1,h2,ex.. so all in all the page will have a very low relevance for the key-phrase "blue t-shirt".
Hence I'm looking for a different solution
-
This is exactly the kind of situation that rel="canonical" exists for. Product color is one of those classic examples SEOs bring up when explaining canonicalization. Don't trust Google to figure things out on their own - make it clear to them that these pages are related and should be treated as such.
-
or maybe my explanation is just crappy
-
Ah, sorry. Miss-understood the question then.
-
Hi there and thanks for your input. But what you mention is exactly what I already have (maybe I just explain it badly), I was kinda looking for a different amazingly brilliant solutions that I hadn't thought of myself
But your thoughts and time is very much appreciated. If you have any other ideas do let me know
-
Hi Rene,
The first impression after reading your question is that I meat the same situation as on faceted navigation.
Still this is something different. My advice would be to put the rel=canonical on and get rid of duplicate content. This way you will have one default image, then the visitor can choose what they need (and you just reload the image).
Writing all the hundreds of thousands of unique texts wouldn't be the solution I believe. Still you can use some parameters in the "facets" such as a #color so if people would like to share this content with their friends they can distribute a visitor friendly URL. That would be my choice.
I hope that helped,
Istvan
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
-
HELP: Why do I have a 61% score for "% of total links, external + follow"?
Firstly, I understand what this percentage is. It's the ratio of external links that are "follow" -> compared to the links that are "no-follow". Four questions: This is definitely not accurate! I have loads of no-follow links Does anyone have ideas or techniques to add more healthy no-follow links? Am I completely misunderstanding this? Will this high score negatively affect my ranking? I could definitely use some help. Thanks so much in advance. I don't think my website address should help, but if you need it for context, it's estatediamondjewely.com.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SamCitron0 -
Content Strategy/Duplicate Content Issue, rel=canonical question
Hi Mozzers: We have a client who regularly pays to have high-quality content produced for their company blog. When I say 'high quality' I mean 1000 - 2000 word posts written to a technical audience by a lawyer. We recently found out that, prior to the content going on their blog, they're shipping it off to two syndication sites, both of which slap rel=canonical on them. By the time the content makes it to the blog, it has probably appeared in two other places. What are some thoughts about how 'awful' a practice this is? Of course, I'm arguing to them that the ranking of the content on their blog is bound to be suffering and that, at least, they should post to their own site first and, if at all, only post to other sites several weeks out. Does anyone have deeper thinking about this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Daaveey0 -
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
The "webmaster" disallowed all ROBOTS to fight spam! Help!!
One of the companies I do work for has a magento site. I am simply the SEO guy and they work the website through some developers who hold access to their systems VERY tightly. Using Google Webmaster Tools I saw that the robots.txt file was blocking ALL robots. I immediately e-mailed out and received a long reply about foreign robots and scrappers slowing down the website. They told me I would have to provide a list of only the good robots to allow in robots.txt. Please correct me if I'm wrong.. but isn't Robots.txt optional?? Won't a bad scrapper or bot still bog down the site? Shouldn't that be handled in httaccess or something different? I'm not new to SEO but I'm sure some of you who have been around longer have run into something like this and could provide some suggestions or resources I could use to plead my case! If I'm wrong.. please help me understand how we can meet both needs of allowing bots to visit the site but prevent the 'bad' ones. Their claim is the site is bombarded by tons and tons of bots that have slowed down performance. Thanks in advance for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JoshuaLindley0 -
Google's form for "Small sites that should rank better" | Any experiences or results?
Back in August of 2013 Google created a form that allowed people to submit small websites that "should be ranking better in Google". There is more info about it in this article http://www.seroundtable.com/google-small-site-survey-17295.html Has anybody used it? Any experiences or results you can share? *private message if you do not want to share publicly...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GregB1230 -
Rel=Canonical to Longer Page?
We've got a series of articles on the same topic and we consolidated the content and pasted it altogether on a single page. We linked from each individual article to the consolidated page. We put a noindex on the consolidated page. The problem: Inbound links to individual articles in the series will only count toward the authority of those individual pages, and inbound links to the full article will be worthless. I am considering removing the noindex from the consolidated article and putting rel=canonicals on each individual post pointing to the consolidated article. That should consolidate the PageRank. But I am concerned about pointing****a rel=canonical to an article that is not an exact duplicate (although it does contain the full text of the original--it's just that it contains quite a bit of additional text). An alternative would be not to use rel=canonicals, nor to place a noindex on the consolidated article. But then my concern would be duplicate content and unconsolidated PageRank. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheEspresseo0 -
Anyone managed to decrease the "not selected" graph in WMT?
Hi Mozzers. I am working with a very large E-com site that has a big issue with duplicate or near duplicate content. The site actually received a message in WMT listing out pages that Google deemed it should not be crawling. Many of these were the usual pagination / category sorting option URL issues etc. We have since fixed the issue with a combination of site changes, robots.txt, parameter handling and URL removals, however I was expecting the "not selected" graph in WMT to start dropping. The number of roboted pages has increased by around 1 million pages (which was expected) and indexed pages has actually increased despite removing hundreds of thousands of pages. I assume this is due to releasing some crawl bandwidth for more important pages like products. I guess my question is two-fold; 1. Is the "not selected" graph cumulative, as this would explain why it isn't dropping? 2. Has anyone managed to get this figure to significantly drop? Should I even care? I am relating this to Panda by the way. Important to note that the changes were made around 3 weeks ago and I am aware not everything will be re-crawled yet. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Further
Chris notselected.jpg0 -
How to remove "Results 1 - 20 of 47" from Google SERP Snippet
We are trying to optimise our SERP snippet in Google to increase CTR, but we have this horrid "Results 1 - 20 of 47" in the description. We feel this gets in the way of the message and so wish to remove it, but how?? Any ideas apart from removing the paging from the page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | speedyseo0