Internal search : rel=canonical vs noindex vs robots.txt
-
Hi everyone,
I have a website with a lot of internal search results pages indexed. I'm not asking if they should be indexed or not, I know they should not according to Google's guidelines. And they make a bunch of duplicated pages so I want to solve this problem.
The thing is, if I noindex them, the site is gonna lose a non-negligible chunk of traffic : nearly 13% according to google analytics !!!
I thought of blocking them in robots.txt. This solution would not keep them out of the index. But the pages appearing in GG SERPS would then look empty (no title, no description), thus their CTR would plummet and I would lose a bit of traffic too...
The last idea I had was to use a rel=canonical tag pointing to the original search page (that is empty, without results), but it would probably have the same effect as noindexing them, wouldn't it ? (never tried so I'm not sure of this)
Of course I did some research on the subject, but each of my finding recommanded one of the 3 methods only ! One even recommanded noindex+robots.txt block which is stupid because the noindex would then be useless...
Is there somebody who can tell me which option is the best to keep this traffic ?
Thanks a million
-
Yeah, normally I'd say to NOINDEX those user-generated search URLs, but since they're collecting traffic, I'd have to side with Alan - a canonical may be your best bet here. Technically, they aren't "true" duplicates, but you don't want the 1K pages in the index, you don't want to lose the traffic (which NOINDEX would do), and you don't want to kill those pages for users (which a 301 would do).
Only thing I'd add is that, if some of these pages are generating most of the traffic (e.g. 10 pages = 90% of the traffic for these internal searches), you might want to make those permanent pages, like categories in your site architecture, and then 301 the custom URLs to those permanent pages.
-
Huh not sure since I'm not a developer (and didn't work on that website dev) but I'd say all of the above^^. If useful, here are their url structure, there's two kind :
- /searchpage.htm?action=search&pagenumber=xx&query=product+otherterms
So I guess they are generated when a user makes a search
paginated (about 15 pages generally),
and I can approximately know how much they are duplicates, I can tell some are probably overlapping when there's a lot of variations for the product. There are just a few complete duplicates (when the product searched is the same with different added terms, doesn't happen a lot in this list).
- /searchpage-searchterm-addedterm-number.htm
Those I find surprising, I don't know if they are pages generated with a fixed url, or if they are rewritten (Haven't looked at the htaccess yet, but I will, god I have a headache just thinking about reading that thing lol)
There's about a thousand of them all (from GGanalytics, about half of each sort, and nearly all are indexed by Google), on a website with about 12 thou total in pages.
Maybe the traffic loss will be compensated by the removed competition between those search pages and the product pages (and the rel=canonical is surely way less brutal than a noindex for that matter), but without experience in these kind of situations it's hard to make a decision...
Really appreciate you guys taking the time to help !
-
Alan's absolutely right about how canonical works, but I just want to clarify something - what about these pages is duplicated? In other words, are these regular searches (like product searches) with duplicate URLs, are these paginated searches (with page 2, 3, etc. that appear thin), or are these user-generated searches spinning out into new search pages (not exact duplicates but overlapping)? The solutions can vary a bit with the problem, and internal search is tricky.
-
Just one more point, a canonical is just a hint to the search engines, it is not a directive, so if they think that the pages should not be merged, they will ignore them, so in that way, they may make the decision for you
-
Not a lot of real duplicates, they're more alike, and the most visited are unique, so I'll keep the most important ones and just toss a few duplicates.
Thanks a lot for your help, problem solved !
-
no not like a noindex. more like a merge.
will it make you rank for many keywords? not necessarly, as a page all about blue widgets is going to rank higher then a page has many different subjects including blue widgets.
A canonical is really for duplicate content, or very alike content.
So you have to decide what your page is, is it duplicate or alike content, or is it unique?
if the pages are unique then do nothing, let them rank. if yopu think they are alike, then use a canonical. if there are only a few, then i would not worry either way.
if you decide they are unique, they I would look at making the page title unique also, maybe even description too.
-
Thanks for your answer
Ok you're saying indeed it will act like a noindex over time.
So if one of the result page would have ranked for a particular query, it will not rank any more, like with a noindex => it will lose the 13% of traffic it generated...
Otherwise it would be too easy to make a page rank for the keywords used in a bunch of other pages that refer to it via rel=canonical... wouldn't it ?
I'm starting to think I can't do anything... Maybe just noindex a bunch of them that cause duplicates, and leave the rest in the index.
-
Rel=canonical is tge way to go, it will tell the search results that all credit for all diffrent urls go to the original search page. eventual onl;y the original search page will exist in the index.
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
-
404 vs 410 vs 301
Hi guys, I am managing a real estate website, and obviously we have a LOT of pages detailing each property. As those properties get sold and removed from the website, I'm wondering how best to handle this - I know 404, 410 and 301's are all valid ways to go, but I want to provide the best UX combined with the best SEO effect. My thinking is to customise a 410 page to show the page has been permanently removed, and has a relevant message (rather than a generic 404 message) and shows a search box - possibly pre-populated according to the page they were looking for.
Technical SEO | | LoonyToons
I think this gives a good UX and helps Google to understand the importance of the 000's of pages on our website.
I'd also like to clear property detail 404's as quick as possible to make it easier to see if we have problems elsewhere on the site. Having explained this to our development/SEO agency, they are strongly pushing for 301 redirects or leave as 404.
I think 301's would be the worst for UX, and as explained earlier, the volume of 404's is massive and makes it difficult to see real errors. They seem to think this is a better UX and better for SEO. Just wondering what you guys would recommend?0 -
Will a Robots.txt 'disallow' of a directory, keep Google from seeing 301 redirects for pages/files within the directory?
Hi- I have a client that had thousands of dynamic php pages indexed by Google that shouldn't have been. He has since blocked these php pages via robots.txt disallow. Unfortunately, many of those php pages were linked to by high quality sites mulitiple times (instead of the static urls) before he put up the php 'disallow'. If we create 301 redirects for some of these php URLs that area still showing high value backlinks and send them to the correct static URLs, will Google even see these 301 redirects and pass link value to the proper static URLs? Or will the robots.txt keep Google away and we lose all these high quality backlinks? I guess the same question applies if we use the canonical tag instead of the 301. Will the robots.txt keep Google from seeing the canonical tags on the php pages? Thanks very much, V
Technical SEO | | Voodak0 -
Site blocked by robots.txt and 301 redirected still in SERPs
I have a vanity URL domain that 301 redirects to my main site. That domain does have a robots.txt to disallow the entire site as well. However, for a branded enough search that vanity domain still shows up in SERPs and has the new Google message of: A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt I get why the message is there - that's not my , my question is shouldn't a 301 redirect trump this domain showing in SERPs, ever? Client isn't happy about it showing at all. How can I get the vanity domain out of the SERPs? THANKS in advance!
Technical SEO | | VMLYRDiscoverability0 -
SEO Terms for Internal Vs External
Hey there! I am writing up an SEO plan for our company and wanted to get the groups input on the use of some SEO terms. I need to organize and explain these efforts to nonSEO people. I usually talk about, SEO in terms of "Internal" vs "External" efforts. Internal SEO efforts being things like Title Tags, Description Tags, Page Speed, Minimizing errors, proper 301 redirect, content development for the site, internal linking and anchor, etc. External SEO efforts being things like Link building, social media profile setups and posts (FB Twitter Pinterest, YouTube), PR work. How do you split these out? What terms do you use? Do you subdivide these tasks? What terms do you use? For example, with Internal, I sometimes talk about "Technical SEO" that has do to with making sure that site speed is working well, 301s are setup correctly, noindex tag etc are all used properly. These are things that different versus "On Page" efforts to use keywords properly etc. I will also use the term "Site Visibility" for non SEOs to explain the technical impact. For example, if your site has the wrong robots.txt, if you have 500 errors everywhere and a slow site, if you are sending spiders down a daisy chain of 301s, it is difficult for the key parts of your site to be found and so your "Visibility" to the engines are poor. You have to get your visibility up, before you begin to then worry about if you have the right keywords on a page etc. Any input or references would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | CleverPhD0 -
Use webmaster tools "change of address" when doing rel=canonical
We are doing a "soft migration" of a website. (Actually it is a merger of two websites). We are doing cross site rel=canonical tags instead of 301's for the first 60-90 days. These have been done on a page by page basis for an entire site. Google states that a "change of address" should be done in webmaster tools for a site migration with 301's. Should this also be done when we are doing this soft move?
Technical SEO | | EugeneF0 -
Can I Disallow Faceted Nav URLs - Robots.txt
I have been disallowing /*? So I know that works without affecting crawling. I am wondering if I can disallow the faceted nav urls. So disallow: /category.html/? /category2.html/? /category3.html/*? To prevent the price faceted url from being cached: /category.html?price=1%2C1000
Technical SEO | | tylerfraser
and
/category.html?price=1%2C1000&product_material=88 Thanks!0 -
How can I exclude display ads from robots.txt?
Google has stated that you can do this to get spiders to content only, and faster. Our IT guy is saying it's impossible.
Technical SEO | | GregBeddor
Do you know how to exlude display ads from robots.txt? Any help would be much appreciated.0 -
Rel canonical or 301 the Index Page?
Still a bit confused on best practice for /index.php showing up as duplicate for www.mysite.com. What do I need to do and How?
Technical SEO | | bozzie3110