Canonical solution for query strings?
-
Greetings,
The Hotel company where I'm employed uses query strings in it's url's to track customers.
The query strings are integrated into our property management system, and they help identify who we need to pay commissions to, so they aren't going anywhere.
While I understand that session variables could have been a better solution, I sort of inherited this problem.
The issue I'm running into is that my Webmaster tools picks up these query strings as actual url's.
So for instance: www.url.com/index.php?P_SOURCE=WBFQ
Seems like a duplicate page of my root, and like wise for all my other pages that use our booking widget.
So, Is there a canonical solution to this issue? or would 301/302's be the only solution.
Also, we may have 10 different but specific query strings to put into our urls. Would the 301/302 approach cause any server issues for say 10 pages? So 10 pages x 10 access codes = a lot of redirects.
Thanks in advance,
Cyril
-
Short answer Yes.( as long as you have rel Canonical them back to the original page ). Google will drop the other pages over time
Things you can do here :
- Make sure your sitemap is not listing these extra urls
Thing I recommend you DONT do
- noIndex the dynamic pages - adding a noindex could tell google not to index those pages, but some one could link back to that page with P_SOURCE=WBFQ and the main page gets no benefit from that
- ask for manual removal ( because google does not like it when we ask them To get the right "version" of your site indexedhttp://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1269119 )
Hope that answers you questions
-
Sweet! Glad to know I can eliminate an option.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Thomas, will the query'd urls eventually drop off once google decides which version is best?
Thanks Saijo
-
Hi Nola504
301 redirect is certainly NOT your solution .. if you 301 redirect www.url.com/index.php?P_SOURCE=WBFQ to your homepage , that is the page visitors will be redirected to ( the ?P_SOURCE=WBFQ will be stripped off , I dont think that is what you want )
Rel canonical will tell Google , thay are all the same page with the same content and it will only show the main url that you nominate as the Canonical url ( in most cases , I have read about some study which claims at times google might decide for itself which is the better page )
Moreinfo http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
-
Thanks for the info Thomas,
I only added the canonical tag about a month ago, do you think over time those query links will eventually die off?
-
Adding in the canonical tag for each page should solve this problem. We use query strings as well for tracking sources and referrers. Canonicals are a solid solution for what you described.
But the fact that Google is finding that URL is another problem. If Google continues to find the URL after your canonical insertion then you may want to 301 redirect that particular string.
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 vs Alternate for country based subdomain dupe content?
What's the correct method for tagging dupe content between country based subdomains? We have: mydomain.com // default, en-us www.mydomain.com // en-us uk.mydomain.com // uk, en-gb au.mydomain.com // australia, en-au eu.mydomain.com // europe, en-eu In the header of each we currently have rel="alternate" tags but we're still getting dupe content warnings in Moz for the "WWW" subdomain. Question 1) Are we headed in the right direction with using alternate? Or would it be better to use canonical since the languages are technically all English, just different regions. The content is pretty much the same minus currency and localization differences. Question 2) How can we solve the dupe content between WWW and the base domain, since the above isn't working. Thanks so much
Technical SEO | | lvdh11 -
Duplicate content: using the robots meta tag in conjunction with the canonical tag?
We have a WordPress instance on an Apache subdomain (let's say it's blog.website.com) alongside our main website, which is built in Angular. The tech team is using Akamai to do URL rewrites so that the blog posts appear under the main domain (website.com/more-keywords/here). However, due to the way they configured the WordPress install, they can't do a wildcard redirect under htaccess to force all the subdomain URLs to appear as subdirectories, so as you might have guessed, we're dealing with duplicate content issues. They could in theory do manual 301s for each blog post, but that's laborious and a real hassle given our IT structure (we're a financial services firm, so lots of bureaucracy and regulation). In addition, due to internal limitations (they seem mostly political in nature), a robots.txt file is out of the question. I'm thinking the next best alternative is the combined use of the robots meta tag (no index, follow) alongside the canonical tag to try to point the bot to the subdirectory URLs. I don't think this would be unethical use of either feature, but I'm trying to figure out if the two would conflict in some way? Or maybe there's a better approach with which we're unfamiliar or that we haven't considered?
Technical SEO | | prasadpathapati0 -
Robots and Canonicals on Moz
We noticed that Moz does not use a robots "index" or "follow" tags on the entire site, is this best practice? Also, for pagination we noticed that the rel = next/prev is not on the actual "button" rather in the header Is this best practice? Does it make a difference if it's added to the header rather than the actual next/previous buttons within the body?
Technical SEO | | PMPLawMarketing0 -
Webmaster Tools Search Queries Data Drop
Hi I'm seeing a significant drop in search queries being reported for a client in GWT starting on the 7th Feb. I have seen a few articles on SERound Table etc saying that many are reporting probs like delays etc with GWT updating its data, such as these ones: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-webmaster-tools-data-stalled-19854.html https://www.seroundtable.com/google-webmaster-tools-analytics-data-19870.html However these seem to suggest the problem is simply a delay with displayed data being updated, in the case im looking at the data is up to date but showing an increasing decline. When i look at Analytics data though the data is completely different. For exmaple GWT says on the 21st Feb there were 23 impressions with zero clicks but Analytics says there were 6 clicks/sessions from organic search. I take it this means that there is a likely problem with GWT data and I shouldn't worry ? All Best Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Anybody having success with Cross-Domain canonical?
Has anyone been using rel="canonical" to attribute content that has been republished on Domain B... back to Domain A, which is the original source? The videos below say that this should be working... I am asking to hear from anyone who has done it. Has it worked as you expected? Did Domain A get the benefit that you expected? Thanks! ========== Source Videos ============= Matt Cutts (April, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI6L2N4A0hA Matt Cutts (April, 2010) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8XdFb6LGtM Rand Fishkin (August, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8drPXudZZc
Technical SEO | | EGOL1 -
Hiding sub directory from a url string
I have been trying for a few hours now to hide a sub-directory from a url string on a joomla site using .htaccess every method i have found either has no effect or breaks the site. i am aiming to change all links with component in them: http://mysite.com/component/music/7335 to http://mysite.com/music/7335 I am using the latest Joomla 2.5 install but not sure how or if that affects anything. Any help would be greatly appreciated
Technical SEO | | omega0 -
Trailing Slashes In Url use Canonical Url or 301 Redirect?
I was thinking of using 301 redirects for trailing slahes to no trailing slashes for my urls. EG: www.url.com/page1/ 301 redirect to www.url.com/page1 Already got a redirect for non-www to www already. Just wondering in my case would it be best to continue using htacces for the trailing slash redirect or just go with Canonical URLs?
Technical SEO | | upick-1623910 -
Best practice canonical tags
I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE BESTPRACTICE IS WHEN USING CANONICAL TAGS: or 2:
Technical SEO | | NEWCRAFT0