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
-
Should I keep writing about the same using rel canonical?
Hi, The service we provide has not so many searches per month. A long tail keyword that describes the service well has at the most 400 searches per month. We wrote a post for this keyword and we ranked number 1 for many months. Now we're on page 2 and I the truth is we stopped writing blog posts because we were raking well for our best keywords. I added a few new posts and lost ranking on my top keywords so I gave up, deleted them and recover the rankings for the keywords I wanted the most. The problem is that I have lost these positions and I know we're supposed to be updating the blog regularly. What would you suggest? Should we keep writing about the same thing and use rel canonical? There aren't that many keywords related to what we offer. I appreciate any ideas.
Technical SEO | | Naix0 -
Robots.txt on refinements
In dealing with Panda do you think it is a good idea to put all refinements for category pages in the robots.txt file? We already have a lot as noindex, follow but I am wondering if it would be better to address from a crawl perspective as the pages are probably thin duplicate content to Google.
Technical SEO | | Gordian0 -
Does all in one seo pack still have a rel canonical issue?
Hi All, I know that the all in one had errors in its rel canonical links on Wordpress but I wondered if this has been fixed. I get mixed info on the web. Anyone know for sure? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | xvpn9020 -
Robots.txt & Mobile Site
Background - Our mobile site is on the same domain as our main site. We use a folder approach for our mobile site abc.com/m/home.html We are re-directing traffic to our mobile site vie device detection and re-direction exists for a handful of pages of our site ie most of our pages do not redirect the user to a mobile equivalent page. Issue – Our mobile pages are being indexed in desktop Google searches Input Required – How should we modify our robots.txt so that the desktop google index does not index our mobile pages/urls User-agent: Googlebot-Mobile Disallow: /m User-agent: `YahooSeeker/M1A1-R2D2` Disallow: /m User-agent: `MSNBOT_Mobile` Disallow: /m Many thanks
Technical SEO | | CeeC-Blogger0 -
Why is an error page showing when searching our website using Google "site:" search function?
When I search our company website using the Google site search function "site:jwsuretybonds.com", a 400 Bad Request page is at the top of the listed pages. I had someone else at our company do the same site search and the 400 Bad Request did not appear. Is there a reason this is happening, and are there any ramifications to it?
Technical SEO | | TheDude0 -
Why is the ideal rel canonical URL structure?
I currently have the rel canonical point to wepay.com/donations/123456. Is it worth the effort making it point to wepay.com/donations/donation-name-123456? I would also need to track histories if users change the vanity URL with this new structure.
Technical SEO | | wepayinc0 -
Trying to reduce pages crawled to within 10K limit via robots.txt
Our site has far too many pages for our 10K page PRO account which are not SEO worthy. In fact, only about 2000 pages qualify for SEO value. Limitations of the store software only permit me to use robots.txt to sculpt the rogerbot site crawl. However, I am having trouble getting this to work. Our biggest problem is the 35K individual product pages and the related shopping cart links (at least another 35K); these aren't needed as they duplicate the SEO-worthy content in the product category pages. The signature of a product page is that it is contained within a folder ending in -p. So I made the following addition to robots.txt: User-agent: rogerbot
Technical SEO | | AspenFasteners
Disallow: /-p/ However, the latest crawl results show the 10K limit is still being exceeded. I went to Crawl Diagnostics and clicked on Export Latest Crawl to CSV. To my dismay I saw the report was overflowing with product page links: e.g. www.aspenfasteners.com/3-Star-tm-Bulbing-Type-Blind-Rivets-Anodized-p/rv006-316x039354-coan.htm The value for the column "Search Engine blocked by robots.txt" = FALSE; does this mean blocked for all search engines? Then it's correct. If it means "blocked for rogerbot? Then it shouldn't even be in the report, as the report seems to only contain 10K pages. Any thoughts or hints on trying to attain my goal would REALLY be appreciated, I've been trying for weeks now. Honestly - virtual beers for everyone! Carlo0