What is the best canonical url to use for a product page?
-
I just helped a client redesign and launch a new website for their organic skin care company (www.hylunia.com). The site is built in Magento which by default creates MANY urls for each product. Which of these two do you think would be the best to use as the canonical version?
http://www.hylunia.com/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution
or http://www.hylunia.com/products/face-care/facial-moisturizers/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution ?I'm leaning on the latter, because it makes sense to me to have the breadcrumbs match the url string, and also it seems having more keywords in the url would help. However, it's obviously a very long url, and there might be some benefits to using the shorter version that I'm not aware of.
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts.
Best,
Daniel
-
I agree with Nakul - your best bet here is the name of the product right after the domain name - clean, short and straight to the point.
I find the canonical urls especially useful when you need the parameters in the url in order to provide some functionality such as highlight the link in the navigation etc., but it doesn't really have much impact on the way the product is displayed - in this case I always use the shortest possible version of the url as the canonical.
Later, when you create your sitemap, make sure that you also use the shortest versions to be included in it - so that you stay consistent with your decision and make it clear to the search engines what version should be indexed.
-
Based on what I see I would recommend you use this one: http://www.hylunia.com/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution Here are my reasons: 1. http://www.hylunia.com/products/face-care/facial-moisturizers/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution is way too long. 2. It 2 levels down in terms of folders. 3. You already have the category names in the Page Title as well as the Breadcrumbs, so you are not really missing out on the On-page by having the category names removed from the URL. That's just my 2c. I hope that helps.
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
-
Category Page - Optimization the product's anchor.
Hello, Does anybody have real experience optimizing internal links in the category page? The category pages of my actual client uses a weird way to link to their own products. Instead of creating diferents links (one in the picture, one in the photo and one in the headline), they create only one huge link, using everything as anchor (picture, text, price, etc.). URL: http://www.friasneto.com.br/imoveis/apartamentos/para-alugar/campinas/ This technique can reduce the total number of links in the page, improving the strenght of the other links, but also can create a "crazy" anchor text for the product. Could I improve my results creating the standard category link (one in the picture, one in the photo and one in the headline)? Hope it's not to confuse.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nobody15569049633980 -
Duplicate page url crawl report
Details: Hello. Looking at the duplicate page url report that comes out of Moz, is the best tactic to a) use 301 redirects, and b) should the url that's flagged for duplicate page content be pointed to the referring url? Not sure where the 301 redirect should be applied... should this url, for example: <colgroup><col width="452"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | compassseo
| http://newgreenair.com/website/blog/ | which is listed in the first column of the Duplicate Page Content crawl, be pointed to referring url in the same spreadsheet? Or, what's the best way to apply the 301 redirect? thanks!0 -
Linking Same Page using Important Keyword as Anchor?
I have came across sites that links to same page from a textual part using their topmost keywords. What is the benefit of linking same page using anchor as keywords to the same page? Does it give SEO benefits?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | welcomecure0 -
Canonicals question ref canonicals pointing to redundant urls
Hi, SCENARIO: A site has say 3 examples of the same product page but with different urls because that product fits into 3 different categories e.g. /tools/hammer /handtools/hammer /specialoffers/hammer and lets say the first 2 of those have the canonical pointing to /specialoffers/hammer YET that page is now redundant e.g. the webmaster decided to do away with the /specialoffers/ folder. ASSUMPTIONS: That is going to seriously hamper the chances of the 2 remaining versions of the hammer page being able to rank as they have canonicals pointing to a url that no longer exists. The canonical tags should be changed to point to 1 of the remaining url versions. As an added complication - lets say /specialoffers/hammer still exists, the url works, but just isn't navigable from the site. Thoughts/feedback welcome!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
Block in robots.txt instead of using canonical?
When I use a canonical tag for pages that are variations of the same page, it basically means that I don't want Google to index this page. But at the same time, spiders will go ahead and crawl the page. Isn't this a waste of my crawl budget? Wouldn't it be better to just disallow the page in robots.txt and let Google focus on crawling the pages that I do want indexed? In other words, why should I ever use rel=canonical as opposed to simply disallowing in robots.txt?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | YairSpolter0 -
Changing domains - best process to use?
I am about to move my Thailand-focused travel website into a new, broader Asia-focused travel website. The Thailand site has had a sad history with Google (algorithmic, not penalties) so I don't want that history to carry over into the new site. At the same time though, I want to capture the traffic that Google is sending me right now and I would like my search positions on Bing and Yahoo to carry through if possible. Is there a way to make all that happen? At the moment I have migrated all the posts over to the new domain but I have it blocked to search engines. I am about to start redirecting post for post using meta-refresh redirects with a no-follow for safety. But at the point where I open the new site up to indexing, should I at the same time block the old site from being indexed to prevent duplicate content penalties? Also, is there a method I can use to selectively 301 redirect posts only if the referrer is Bing or Yahoo, but not Google, before the meta-refresh fires? Or alternatively, a way to meta-refresh redirect if the referrer is Google but 301 redirect otherwise? Or is there a way to "noindex, nofollow" the redirect only if the referrer is Google? Is there a danger of being penalised for doing any of these things? Late Edit: It occurs to me that if my penalties are algorithmic (e.g. due to bad backlinks), does 301 redirection even carry that issue through to the new website? Or is it left behind on the old site?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gavin.Atkinson0 -
URL Going Over the Last Page of Pagination - Post Webinar Discussion
**Discussion Question: **Lets say you have 33 pages of paginated content but someone lands on page 34+, what do you do? I just setup a variable on my site so when someone lands on a page that is over the page count they are redirected to the last page of the paginated content. My reasoning is the user is looking for the last page, so why not redirect them to it? Now I just saw in the latest webinar on ecommerce (by Everett Sizemore) that he recommends a 404… should I switch? Why a 404? Again, what do you guys do when you encounter this situation?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeTheBoss0 -
Does rel=canonical fix duplicate page titles?
I implemented rel=canonical on our pages which helped a lot, but my latest Moz crawl is still showing lots of duplicate page titles (2,000+). There are other ways to get to this page (depending on what feature you clicked, it will have a different URL) but will have the same page title. Does having rel=canonical in place fix the duplicate page title problem, or do I need to change something else? I was under the impression that the canonical tag would address this by telling the crawler which URL was the URL and the crawler would only use that one for the page title.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | askotzko0