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
-
Canonical Help (this is a nightmare)
Hi, We're new to SEO and trying to fix our domain canonical issue. A while back we were misusing the "link canonical" tag such that Google was tracking params (e.g. session ids, tagging ) all as different unique urls. This created a nightmare as now Google thinks there's millions of pages associated with our domain when the reality is really a couple thousand unique links. Since then, we've tried to fix this by: 1) specifying params to ignore via SEO webmasters 2) properly using the canonical tag. However, I'm still recognizing there's a bunch of outsanding search results that resulted from this mess. Any idea on expectation on when we'd see this cleaned up? I'm also recognizing that google is looking at http://domain.com and https://domain.com as 2 different pages even though we specify to only look at "http://domain.com" via the link canonical tag. Again, is this just a matter of waiting for Google to update its results? We submitted a site map but it seems like it's taking forever for the results of our site to clear up... Any help or insight would greatly be appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sfgmedia0 -
301 redirect to a temporary URL
Hi there, What would happen if I redirected a set of URLs to a temporary URL structure. And then a few weeks later redirected the original URLs and temporary URLs to the final permanent URLs? So for example:A -> B for a few weeks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sichristie
then: A->C and B->C where:
C is the final destination URL.
B is the temporary destination
A is the original URL. The reason we are doing this is the naming of the URLs and pages are different, and we wish to transition our customers carefully from old to new. I am looking for a pure technical response.
Would we lose link juice? Does Google care if we permanently redirect to a set of 'temporary' URLs, and then permanently redirect to a set of what we think are permanent URLs? Cheers, Simon0 -
Use of Rel=Canonical
I have been pondering whether I am using this tag correctly or not. We have a custom solution which lays out products in the typical eCommerce style with plenty of tick box filters to further narrow down the view. When I last researched this it seemed like a good idea to implement rel=canonical to point all sub section pages at a 'view-all' page which returns all the products unfiltered for that given section. Normally pages are restricted down to 9 results per page with interface options to increase that. This combined with all the filters we offer creates many millions of possible page permutations and hence the need for the Canonical tag. I am concerned because our view-all pages get large, returning all of that section's product into one place.If I pointed the view-all page at say the first page of x results would that defeat the object of the view-all suggestion that Google made a few years back as it would require further crawling to get at all the data? Alternatively as these pages are just product listings, would NoIndex be a better route to go given that its unlikely they will get much love in Google anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | motiv80 -
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 -
Canonical url question
i just search seomoz tooll it say duplicate content for www.mysite.com and www.mysite.com/index.php should i use canonical url for this ? is yes then is this right ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
Do my redirects on my homepage need to be 301?
Our domain name is something like www.I-am-cool.com but most people just type in iamcool.com After doing some research I found that those are 302 redirects and I think they should be 301. If I am correct do I need to redirect www.iamcool.com and iamcool.com or just one or the other?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
301 of EDM domains
If I buy a keyword EDM domain and 301 redirect it to my site, will I rank better for that keyword?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | creaturmedia0 -
SEO consultant/expert
I am looking to hire an SEO expert that can not only make suggestions/perform audit, but also execute changes. Of course lots of companies are available, but I am ideally looking for an individual with a nice track record. No offense to SEO firms, but I am not interested in paying for overhead, etc. Curious to know if others have gone this route and what the experience has been like. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MNKid150