Will this internal linking feature cause canonicalization issues?
-
This is a canonicalization type question, so I believe it should be a pretty straightforward answer. I just haven't had much experience with using the canonical tag so I felt I should ask so I don't blow up my site
Ok, let's say I have a product page that is at:
- www.exampledomain.com/products/nameofproduct
Now on that page I have an option to see all of the specs of the product in a collapsible tab which I want to link to from other pages - So the URL to this tab ends from other pages ends up being:
- www.exampledomain.com/products/nameofproduct?=productspecs
This will link to the tab and default it to open when someone clicks that link on another page.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand canonicalization correctly I believe creating this link is going to cause a duplicate page that has the opportunity to be indexed and detract from our SEO to the main product page.
My question is... where do I put the "rel=canonical" tag to point the SEO value back to the main page since the page is dynamically generated and doesn't have its own file on the server? - or do even need to be concerned with this?
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above. Like I said - this is something I am fairly familiar with how it works, but I haven't had much experience with using.
Thanks!
-
We'll be using IIS, but I suppose it works the same way. It's my hope to get this done with one small change and not have to update an entire database of thousands of pages.
Can that not be done?
-
Hey
So, your product pages are as follows:
productpage.php?productid=1
productpage.php?productid=2
productpage.php?productid=3And you are worried about duplicates that would be in the following format with three versions of product=1
productpage.php?productid=1
productpage.php?productid=1&variation=A
productpage.php?productid=1&variation=B
productpage.php?productid=1&variation=CIf so, then your canonical link for productid=1 which would go on all of the above variations of the productid=1 page would be:
<link <span>rel="canonical" href="productpage.php?productid=1" /></link <span>
Summary
The page name includes the bit that makes it a unique page but you are applying the canonical to all variations of that.
Hope it helps!
Marcus -
Makes sense.
Let me make sure I understand.
So, basically on that parameter page in the I need to have my programmers code the rel=canonical to pass in the URL of the page in the form of "www.exampledomain.com/productpage" - and that will take care of pointing all of the duplicate content generated by those query strings back to each individual product page, and will also ensure each product page is still indexed with its full SEO value?
-
It is one tag, but not one instance of the tag. The canonical must be on each param page referring back to the product page. It would he part of your head that you dynamically generate.
-
Yes this is what I want to do. I want Google to ignore the duplicate pages that would be created by the additional parameters and pass SEO value back to the product page.
What I'm confused about is how to code the tag and how to implement it. Each page, which there are thousands of, is generated dynamically - so I only have that one container page that I can update.
How do I take care of all of the product pages with one tag? Is this something that is done in the database?
Unfortunately we don't have a CMS in place, however it's something we're highly considering.
-
Cody -
Is the URL ending in /productname the individual product page? If so, what we are saying will work to canonicalize your product page. You're simply telling Google not to pass pagerank to the /productname?=productspecs page. You're telling them to ignore the specs part of the page as a separate page and to instead pass the link juice to the main page.
Once again, please correct any misunderstandings we may have of what you are trying to do.
Also, you incorporate the canonical tag on a page level. Hopefully you can set this through the CMS (I use Yoast SEO to do this with Wordpress).
-
True, if you want pages to build PR, it needs to to be canonicalized. What you are doing with the canonical is handling anything after the ? and pointing all page value back behind the ? If I'm reading this correctly, why would you want the spec page to gain value? Sorry if I'm not, I'm remote.
-
Hey guys. Thanks for all of the responses. The query string actually comes from part of a search tool, so I don't know if it can be output as a named anchor. If so it would require reprogramming the search tool. It's possible, but I believe at this point it would probably be easier to use the rel=canonical tag.
What I'm not getting is this:
All of our product pages are dynamically generated. So they are loaded into a page at:
www.exampledomain.com/products/productname
If I put the rel=canonical tag on that host page that is populated with data wouldn't I be throwing out any possibility for my individual product pages to rank? Wouldn't it all point back to that one product?
How do I use the rel=canonical tag so that each individual product page gets all of the ranking. Is there a way to do this?
-
Marcus -
I was going to suggest this as well, but did not know if it would be relevant. Good suggestion.
Question though. Will he need to specify somewhere on the page to link to the named anchor (i.e. an index on the actual page?) for the named anchors to work, or is this not an issue? This is why I did not suggest it, because I did not know the answer to my question.
-
Named anchors I great if it meets your needs otherwise rel canonical will work.
-
I agree that this is an excellent use of the canonical tag. The canonical tag goes on the host page nameofproduct and then when any other page is called nameofproduct?=productspecs, SEs will give credit to the nameofproduct page**. **
**I hope that answers your question. **
-
I agree that this is an excellent use of the canonical tag. The canonical tag goes on the host page nameofproduct and then when any other page is called nameofproduct?=productspecs, SEs will give credit to the nameofproduct page**. **
**I hope that answers your question. **
-
Hey, using the rel=canonical tag on the page will prevent this from being a problem but a better way would be to use named anchors instead of query string variables. Named anchors are page level navigation so you are not creating a potential duplicate version of the same page.
If you use querystring variables, you are creating a problem, and then fixing it with rel=canonical. If you use named anchors as page level navigation, you are never creating the problem in the first place.
- www.exampledomain.com/products/nameofproduct#productspecs
Hope it helps!
Marcus -
Nope that is what i was going to say, but you beat me to it.
-
I know that you put the canonical tag in the of your page, so it looks like:
rel="canonical" href="(originalpageURL)" />
Since you are linking a dynamic part of that page, the rel=canonical that you have specified there will hold for the page. It will be a dynamic page, but it is a subset of the page, so you should be fine.
Someone PLEASE correct me if I am wrong.
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
-
How Many Links to Disavow at Once When Link Profile is Very Spammy?
We are using link detox (Link Research Tools) to evaluate our domain for bad links. We ran a Domain-wide Link Detox Risk report. The reports showed a "High Domain DETOX RISK" with the following results: -42% (292) of backlinks with a high or above average detox risk
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
-8% (52) of backlinks with an average of below above average detox risk
-12% (81) of backlinks with a low or very low detox risk
-38% (264) of backlinks were reported as disavowed. This look like a pretty bad link profile. Additionally, more than 500 of the 689 backlinks are "404 Not Found", "403 Forbidden", "410 Gone", "503 Service Unavailable". Is it safe to disavow these? Could Google be penalizing us for them> I would like to disavow the bad links, however my concern is that there are so few good links that removing bad links will kill link juice and really damage our ranking and traffic. The site still ranks for terms that are not very competitive. We receive about 230 organic visits a week. Assuming we need to disavow about 292 links, would it be safer to disavow 25 per month while we are building new links so we do not radically shift the link profile all at once? Also, many of the bad links are 404 errors or page not found errors. Would it be OK to run a disavow of these all at once? Any risk to that? Would we be better just to build links and leave the bad links ups? Alternatively, would disavowing the bad links potentially help our traffic? It just seems risky because the overwhelming majority of links are bad.0 -
If I nofollow outbound external links to minimize link juice loss > is it a good/bad thing?
OK, imagine you have a blog, and you want to make each blog post authoritative so you link out to authority relevant websites for reference. In this case it is two external links per blog post, one to an authority website for reference and one to flickr for photo credit. And one internal link to another part of the website like the buy-now page or a related internal blog post. Now tell me if this is a good or bad idea. What if you nofollow the external links and leave the internal link untouched so all internal links are dofollow. The thinking is this minimizes loss of link juice from external links and keeps it flowing through internal links to pages within the website. Would it be a good idea to lay off the nofollow tag and leave all as do follow? or would this be a good way to link out to authority sites but keep the link juice internal? Your thoughts are welcome. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rich_Coffman0 -
SEO Indexing issues
Hi, We have been submitting sitemaps on a weekly basis for couple of months now and only 40% of the submitted pages are indexed each time. Whether on the design , content or technical side, the website doesn't violate google guidelines.Can someone help me find the issue? website: http://goo.gl/QN5CevThanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZeFan0 -
ECommerce website with link to manufactures site for ordering - Should these links be follow or no follow?
Dear Mozzers, I have a couple of questions regarding link juice and whether I should have do follow or no follow links ? We have an affiliate eCommerce website and on our product pages we have a "Order online " button which will go our subdomain on the manufactures site in order for the user to complete the online ordering process So it's - www.ourcompany.co.uk - "Order Online Button" - www.manufactuer.ourcompany.co.uk Should this " Order online Button" be a Follow or No Follow link ? I ask this as currently from looking at Majestic seo , these "order online " buttons on my product pages seems to be Follow links so am I losing potential link juice by sending it externally ? Am I correct in assuming by changing it to be no follows, I would increase the link juice going elsewhere internally? thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
How to fix issues from 301s
Case: We are currently in the middle of a site migration from .asp to .net and Endeca PageBuilder, and from a homebrewed search provider to Endeca Search. We have migrated most of our primary landing pages and our entire e-commerce site to the new platforms. During the transition approximately 100 of our primary landing pages were inadvertently 302ed to the new version. Once this was caught they were immediately changed to 301s and submitted to the Google’s index through webmaster tools. We initially saw increases in visits to the new pages, but currently (approximately 3 weeks after the change from 301 to 302) are experiencing a significant decline in visits. Issue: My assumption is many of the internal links (from pages which are now 301ed as well) to these primary landing pages are still pointing to the old version of the primary landing page in Google’s cache, and thus have not passed the importance and internal juice to the new versions. There are no navigational links or entry points to the old supporting pages left, and I believe this is what is driving the decline. Proposed resolution: I intend to create a series of HTML sitemaps of the old version (.asp) of all pages which have recently been 301ed. I will then submit these pages to Google’s index (not as sitemaps, just normal pages) with the selection to index all linked pages. My intention is to force Google to pick up all of the 301s, thus enforcing the authority channels we have set up. Question 1: Is the assumption that the decline could be because of missed authority signals reasonable? Question 2: Could the proposed solution be harmful? Question 3: Will the proposed solution be adequate to resolve the issue? Any help would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you in advance, David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FireMountainGems0 -
Fixed "lower-case/mixed-case" Internal Links causing duplicate- Now What?
Hi, So after a site re-launch, Moz crawled it and reported over 150 duplicate content errors. It was determined that it was because of incorrect uses of capitalization in internal links. Using screaming frog, I found all (500+) internal links and fixed them to match the actual URL. Now the site is100% consistent across the board as best I can tell. I am unsure what to do next though. We launched the site with all the internal link errors, and now many of the pages that are indexed and ranked are with the incorrect URL form. Some have said to use a canonical tag. But how can I use a canonical tag on a page doesn't even exist? Same thing with 301. Can I redirect /examplepage to /ExamplePage if only /ExamplePage actually exists? I would really appreciate some advice on what to do. After I fixed the internal links, I waited a week and Moz crawled the site again and reported all the same errors, and then even more. All capitalization. Seems like it's a mess. After I did another Screaming Frog crawl, it showed no duplicates, so I know I was successful in fixing the internals. Help!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yogitrout10 -
How do I find the links on my site that link to another one of my pages?
I ran IIS Seo toolkit and it found about 40 pages that I have no idea how they exist. What tool can I use to find out what internal link is linking to them so I can fix them or get rid of them?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Hreflang and canonicalization
When using hreflang in order to deliver the relevant version in SERs, should we also make use of a reference to a canonical version to avoid duplication? Currently, we provide different regional versions of our content where the content is largely the same aside from minor changes due to spelling, units of measurement although occasionally larger amends are required. We have implemented hreflang referencing all the alternative country Urls, e.g en-us, en-gb, en-aus etc but also specificied the canonical as the en-gb version since we are a UK based website and the majority of the content originated from the UK version of our site. Recently, our rankings across all countries have been falling markedly and I'm wondering whether the canonical element may be at fault. We have not been engaging in any black hat activities that might have been responsible for any sort of fall. When we implemented the hreflang and canonical in July 2012 our traffic has actually been increasing significantly until literally 21 Nov when the search traffic is plummeting considerably across all countries. It would be useful to know if you need to specify a canonical version when using hreflang or could there be another reason for our ranking falls. Many thanks in advance of your assistance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | simon_realbuzz0