Rel=canonical + no index
-
We have been doing an a/b test of our hp and although we placed a rel=canonical tag on the testing page it is still being indexed. In fact at one point google even had it showing as a sitelink . We have this problem through out our website. My question is:
What is the best practice for duplicate pages?
1. put only a rel= canonical pointing to the "wanted original page"
2. put a rel= canonical (pointing to the wanted original page) and a no index on the duplicate version
Has anyone seen any detrimental effect doing # 2?
Thanks
-
Interesting - I've very rarely had issues with GWO, but if a new URL was created and someone linked to it, I can see where you might have a problem.
(1) None of these things are absolute, I'm afraid, but typically, yes - a rel=canonical to a different page should keep the first page out of the index.
(2) Usually, but it depends. The problem here may be that Google just isn't crawling the test variant very often, so they may not be processing the rel=canonical yet.
If it's just a couple of pages, I'd give it time - it's probably not an emergency situation. Again, you could just tell Google to remove them in GWT. I think you're doing the right thing with the canonical tags, but it can take Google time to process them the way you want to, in practice.
-
To answer the second question :
We actually use google's website optimizer to run our test -- the problem started when someone linked to the test page....
Not sure if these scenarios are different for google -- but just trying to understand it
1. if a page was never indexed before and you put a rel= canonical on it (pointing to a different page) than the rel = canonical will keep it out of the index?
2. If a page was already in the index and you put on rel=canonical is that a strong enough signal for google to go and remove it from the index?
obviously both these scenarios are once the pages have been crawled
-
I wouldn't mix those signals - it's nearly impossible to tell what's working if you do. If the canonical on the test page isn't working, there may be a couple of issues:
(1) It could just be taking time. Honestly, it's never as fast as you want it to be.
(2) It may be that the test versions got crawled originally, but now aren't being crawled (on the canonical isn't being processed). Check the cache date on the test page.
The big question is how they got crawled in the first place. It's often better to use some sort of cookie-based implementation so that Google never even sees the B version. That's how most of the A/B test implementations work (specifically to avoid this problem).
If it's just a couple of URLs and you can't shake them, you could request manual removal in GWT. That really depends on the scope and URL structure, though.
-
Good point, i was thinking of robots.txt, where the page would not eb read.
But I have not thought about that situation. i am not sure what search engines would do.
But still, just the canonical is needed.
-
A page that has a no index on it still gets crawled and therefore the rel=canonical directive is still "seen" by the bot --- so why wouldn't the rel=canonical pass the credit over?
-
Just the rel canonical
if you no index the page, the rel canonical can not be indexed and can not work
Rel canonical simply passes the credit for the content to the canonical page.
no index is like cutting off your hand because you have a splinter. links pointing to a non indexed page are puring link juice into thin air.
You can use a mete noindex , follow so that some of the link juice is returned, but canonical is best for duplicate content.
Actualy getting rid of the duplicate content is best
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
-
Google is indexing our old domain
We changed our primary domain from vivitecsolutions.com to vivitec.net. Google is indexing our new domain, but still has our old domain indexed too. The problem is that the old site is timing out because of the https: Thought on how to make the old indexing go away or properly forward the https?
Technical SEO | | AdsposureDev0 -
"Yet-to-be-translated" Duplicate Content: is rel='canonical' the answer?
Hi All, We have a partially internationalized site, some pages are translated while others have yet to be translated. Right now, when a page has not yet been translated we add an English-language page at the url https://our-website/:language/page-name and add a bar for users to the top of the page that simply says "Sorry, this page has not yet been translated". This is best for our users, but unfortunately it creates duplicate content, as we re-publish our English-language content a second time under a different url. When we have untranslated (i.e. duplicate) content I believe the best thing we can do is add which points to the English page. However here's my concern: someday we _will_translate/localize these pages, and therefore someday these links will _not _have duplicate content. I'm concerned that a long time of having rel='canonical' on these urls, if we suddenly change this, that these "recently translated, no longer pointing to cannonical='english' pages" will not be indexed properly. Is this a valid concern?
Technical SEO | | VectrLabs0 -
Why Are Some Pages On A New Domain Not Being Indexed?
Background: A company I am working with recently consolidated content from several existing domains into one new domain. Each of the old domains focused on a vertical and each had a number of product pages and a number of blog pages; these are now in directories on the new domain. For example, what was www.verticaldomainone.com/products/productname is now www.newdomain.com/verticalone/products/product name and the blog posts have moved from www.verticaldomaintwo.com/blog/blogpost to www.newdomain.com/verticaltwo/blog/blogpost. Many of those pages used to rank in the SERPs but they now do not. Investigation so far: Looking at Search Console's crawl stats most of the product pages and blog posts do not appear to be being indexed. This is confirmed by using the site: search modifier, which only returns a couple of products and a couple of blog posts in each vertical. Those pages are not the same as the pages with backlinks pointing directly at them. I've investigated the obvious points without success so far: There are a couple of issues with 301s that I am working with them to rectify but I have checked all pages on the old site and most redirects are in place and working There is currently no HTML or XML sitemap for the new site (this will be put in place soon) but I don't think this is an issue since a few products are being indexed and appearing in SERPs Search Console is returning no crawl errors, manual penalties, or anything else adverse Every product page is linked to from the /course page for the relevant vertical through a followed link. None of the pages have a noindex tag on them and the robots.txt allows all crawlers to access all pages One thing to note is that the site is build using react.js, so all content is within app.js. However this does not appear to affect pages higher up the navigation trees like the /vertical/products pages or the home page. So the question is: "Why might product and blog pages not be indexed on the new domain when they were previously and what can I do about it?"
Technical SEO | | BenjaminMorel0 -
IP canonization
Hi, I need your opinions about IP canonization. Site www.peoplemaps.com is on 78.136.30.112 IP. Now we redirect that IP to the main page (because of possible duplicate content). But, we have more sites on the same IP address. How can that affect on their SEO? Before redirecting, when we visit that IP address, the browser showed mainpage of www.peoplemaps.com, not any other site. Thanks, Milan edit: We have used 301 redirect.
Technical SEO | | MilanB.0 -
Incorrect rel canonical , impacts ?
Incorrect use of canonical code.. and why have they used the strange code surrounding it. Hi there seo guys, I need some help.. a site I am working on has used the rel canonical tag incorrectly. they have used the code on the cannon page not on the duplicate pages.. there is also some other strange code with it. I will show and hide the url.. However I wanted to know if this would stop google bots crawling this page correctly as they dont seem to rank very well either.. here is the code:
Technical SEO | | ibusmedia0 -
Canonical warnings
[1] My site development tool (XSP) has recently added the canonical reference as an auto-generated tag, so every page of my site now has it. Why is SEOmoz warning me that I have hundreds of pages of canonicals if it's supposed to be a GOOD thing? [2] Google is still seeing the pages without the canonical tag because that's how they were indexed. Will they eventually get purged from their index, or should I be proactive about that, and if so, how? Thanks for any input.
Technical SEO | | PatioLifeStyle0 -
How to Find all the Pages Index by Google?
I'm planning on moving my online store, http://www.filtrationmontreal.com/ to a new platform, http://www.corecommerce.com/ To reduce the SEO impact, I want to redirect 301 all the pages index by Google to the new page I will create in the new platform. I will keep the same domaine name, but all the URL will be customize on the new platform for better SEO. Also, is there a way or tool to create CSV file from those page index. Can Webmaster tool help? You can read my question about this subject here, http://www.seomoz.org/q/impacts-on-moving-online-store-to-new-platform Thank you, BigBlaze
Technical SEO | | BigBlaze2050 -
Are Google now indexing iFrames?
A client is pulling content through an iFrame, and when searching for a snippet of that exact content the page that is pulling the data is being indexed and not the iFrame page. Seen this before?
Technical SEO | | White.net0