Canonical / 301 Redundancy
-
Suppose I have two dynamic URLs that lead to the identical page:
www.example.com/product.php?x=1&y=1
and
www.example.com/product.php?y=1
The x=1 parameter had some historical meaning, but is now unused. All references to the x=1 parameter have been removed from internal links and sitemaps.
I have implemented two solutions:
First, the header of www.example.com/product.php?x=1&y=1 includes:
Second, the .htaccess file includes the following:
Redirect permanent /product.php?x=1&y=1 http://www.example.com/product.php?y=1
Questions:
1. I assume that since canonical is still relatively new, it's best to play it safe and implement both solutions. Is this correct?
2. When I point my browser to www.example.com/product.php?x=1&y=1, it does NOT redirect to www.example.com/product.php?y=1. The address bar continues to show the non-canonical URL. Is this because the canonical tag somehow takes precedence over the 301 redirect?
3. How long will Google Webmaster Tools continue to show these as duplicates, even though I've implemeted BOTH canonical and 301? It's been a few weeks and I thought it would have rolled off by now.
Thanks!
-
Note to self, and to others who see this thread later, the 301 for this situation is:
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} x=([0-9]+)&y=([0-9]+)
RewriteRule ^product.php$ http://www.example.com/product.php?y=%2 [r=301,nc]
-
Dr. Pete,
Thanks for the very helpful answer. I've gotten rid of the rel-canonical tag for this part of the site and I'll try to figure out what's up with the 301s.
BTW, I listened to the recorded version of your "future proofing" webinar this morning and learned a lot.
Akira
-
(1) Honestly, I tend not to double-up, if for no other reason that you can't really tell what's work and what isn't. Keep in mind, too, that these tools do have different purposes. 301-redirects impact everyone (users and bots), whereas rel-canonical is only for search. If a 301 is appropriate, then just use a 301.
(2) If the address bar isn't changing, your 301-redirect isn't working. Test it with a header checker:
http://tools.seobook.com/server-header-checker/
A rel-canonical tag will not override browser behavior (at least, not at this point in time).
(3) It can take weeks to clear, and it sounds like your 301 isn't working right, so that's going to exacerbate the problem. The page has to re-crawl and re-cache, and GWT may still show the message for a couple of weeks after that.
Personally, I'd drop the canonical and fix the 301-redirect.
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
-
Rel=canonical Question
Alright, so let's say we've got an event coming up. The URL is website.com/event. On that page, you can access very small pages with small amounts of information, like website.com/event/register, website.com/event/hotel-info, and website.com/event/schedule. These originally came up as having missing meta descriptions, and I was thinking a rel=canonical might be the best approach, but I'm not sure. What do you think? Is there a better approach? Should I have just added a meta description and moved on?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWillner0 -
Keyword Targeting / Cannibalisation
Hi Guys We're about to launch a very large website for a flooring company and would like to find out more about _key word _cannibalisation - to put my mind at rest. I know Rand posted a Whiteboard Friday early last year about this topic and mentioned using part of the same keyword was ok to use. All our keywords are specifically geared for "user intent" meaning each keyword has relevance and the content to back up the keyword. We've ensured the keywords are located within each url, placed at the start of the page title, h1 etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GaryVictory1 -
301 Directs
We have found a lot of 404 error pages that we have transferred with 301 directs. My questions is, should these 301 directs be marked as a NF (nofollow)?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Essential-Pest0 -
301 Redirect from unused domain
Hi All First question here so go easy.. I have a property site which is working well so far considering it;s early days, unfortunately some of my earlier efforts did not go so well and one in particular I pretty much destroyed in my attempts to improve the site SEO. Lucky enough my SEO skills have improved quite a bit lately, largely thanks to the great tools, tutorials and experts here at Moz 🙂 My question is whether I can use a 301 redirect to pass the domain authority and any link equity from an unused site to the one that ive done a better job on? it would seem a little sketchy to me and I would prefer not to get slapped and penalized "again" for doing something dodgy... Thanks everyone and thanks for all the help over the last 6 months or so.. Wes Dunn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wesdunn19771 -
Canonical tag + HREFLANG vs NOINDEX: Redundant?
Hi, We launched our new site back in Sept 2013 and to control indexation and traffic, etc we only allowed the search engines to index single dimension pages such as just category, brand or collection but never both like category + brand, brand + collection or collection + catergory We are now opening indexing to double faceted page like category + brand and the new tag structure would be: For any other facet we're including a "noindex, follow" meta tag. 1. My question is if we're including a "noindex, follow" tag to select pages do we need to include a canonical or hreflang tag afterall? Should we include it either way for when we want to remove the "noindex"? 2. Is the x-default redundant? Thanks for any input. Cheers WMCA
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WMCA0 -
Thousands of /img/img/img urls generated by website - where are they coming from?
Hello -just fed website into Screaming Frog and ended up crashing computer as these img/img/img urls went into the 10s of thousands (and the numbers of img/img/img/ in each URL ended up going into the dozens and probably hundreds and more per URL). Never seen anything like it! Any idea what might be going on with this website and why it's generating so many of these URLs - it is anything to worry about? Here's example of shorter URL... www.company.com/discover/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/img/photo-competition-winners
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Canonical tags required when redirecting?
Hello, My client bought a new domain and he wants it to be the main domain of his company. His current domain though has been online for 10 years and ranks pretty well on a few keywords. I feel it is necessary to redirect the old domain to the new one to take advantage of its ranking and avoid any broken links. The sites are exactly the same. Same sections and same content. Is it necessary to place canonical tags on one of the sites to avoid duplicate content/sites? Any thoughts? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eblan0 -
301 Redirect - How Long Until Recovery?
How long after one moves a page and sets up the 301s should the site take to regain its previous rankings? Context: i've ported a site to a new framework. Along the way, several high ranked pages needed to have new URLs setup, as well as the site moved from www.domain.com to simply domain.com. About 1 week after the change, the site's traffic went down 70% and has been there for about another 2 weeks. I suppose it could be something about the new framework that is causing problems though according to SEOMoz tools, the new framework is checking out pretty well. I assume the problem is reconciling all those old www inbound links with the new non-www location. It is all 301'd however ... so it should be working, but is not. So my questions are: 1. How long should it take Google to reconcile these changes and put us back to original SERP positions 2. is there something inherently problematic with switching from www to non-www?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NealCabage0