Similar pages: noindex or rel:canonical or disregard parameters?!
-
Hey all!
We have a hotel booking website that has search results pages per destinations (e.g. hotels in NYC is dayguest.com/nyc). Pages are also generated for destinations depending on various parameters, that can be star rating, amenities, style of the properties, etc. (e.g. dayguest.com/nyc/4stars, dayguest.com/nyc/luggagestorage, dayguest.com/nyc/luxury, etc.).
In general, all of these pages are very similar, as for example, there might be 10 hotels in NYC and all of them will offer luggage storage. Pages can be nearly identical. Come the problems of duplicate content and loss of juice by dilution.
I was wondering what was the best practice in such a situation: should I just put all pages except the most important ones (e.g. dayguest.com/nyc) as noindex? Or set it as canonical page for all variations? Or in google webmaster tool ask google to disregard the URLs for various parameters? Or do something else altogether?!
Thanks for the help!
-
Sorry, I don't think I explained (1) very well. What I mean is that you may want to gradually change the site architecture so that not all of the search options are crawlable pages. This could mean putting some filters in form variables, for example (instead of links). It could also mean making sure that certain paths always converge. There's no easy solution. This is a problem all big sites face, and it's very dependent on the platform/CMS.
With (2), a "level" could be anything. Maybe there are major cities you need to cover but everything else could stay out of the index. This really depends on your information architecture, but there's always something that's high priority and something that's low priority. If you can focus Google on the high-priority pages, it can definitely work in your favor. The trick is figuring out how to build the logic such that you can code that dynamically. I've found there's almost always an answer, but it can take some creative thinking. I definitely don't encourage doing it manually.
If the results are easy to group by city and you can code that logic, the canonical may be fine. Since the search results could be different in some cases, canonical isn't technically the best choice, but it does often work. It really depends on how different they can be, so it's a bit tricky.
-
Honestly, option 1 would be a nightmare. Imagine that we add one property in a city not covered. There are about 50 amenities, and most hotels feature most, so as much new pages generated. That would become quickly unmanageable, to handle manually.
Not sure I understand your second option. There are not several "level", only one under the "city" in which the property is. But mutliplied by several cities, they quickly become hundreds, if not thousands.
Why would it not be possible/desirable to code all such pages as canonical pages of each city?
-
Ugh - that's what I was afraid you'd say. Unfortunately, the coincidental problem can't really be easily solved with code, which makes it hard to use canonical tags. There's no good way to tell the site when to use them.
So, a couple of options:
(1) Try to gradually rework the structure so that there are less of these paths.
(2) Consider using META NOINDEX on some lower-value paths. Internal search results don't have great value for Google, so you could let the major categories/options be indexed, but the cut off a certain level (index nothing "below" it). That may be more feasible from a code standpoint.
(3) Use rel=prev/next, use unique TITLEs if possible (based on the query) and just clean things up the best you can, but leave everything indexed.
It depends a lot on your scope, structure, and your future plans. I'm not sure there's one "right" answer.
-
Ugh - that's what I was afraid you'd say. Unfortunately, the coincidental problem can't really be easily solved with code, which makes it hard to use canonical tags. There's no good way to tell the site when to use them.
So, a couple of options:
(1) Try to gradually rework the structure so that there are less of these paths.
(2) Consider using META NOINDEX on some lower-value paths. Internal search results don't have great value for Google, so you could let the major categories/options be indexed, but the cut off a certain level (index nothing "below" it). That may be more feasible from a code standpoint.
(3) Use rel=prev/next, use unique TITLEs if possible (based on the query) and just clean things up the best you can, but leave everything indexed.
It depends a lot on your scope, structure, and your future plans. I'm not sure there's one "right" answer.
-
These pages return the same results coincidentally, that's the issue... The more properties we get on board, the less likely it is that these pages will be similar. But it might take a long time to build that up, and we may never achieve it.
-
Ah, got it - yeah, I think rel=canonical would be fine there, but I'd want to understand your architecture better. Are these pages returning the same results coincidentally, or are these two URLs that basically land on the same combination of search options/filters. If it's the former, it's a lot tougher, because that's just a coincidence happening at large scale. If it's the latter, a solid canonical scheme could help a lot, but I'd also explore whether these paths are useful (or should be indexed at all). In other words, in the long term, it might be better to use one URL consistently, even if people navigate by different paths to reach it.
-
That's odd, they were supposed to be the same. And yeah, results come and go as properties are added/removed from our inventory.
The following is what I wanted to highlight:
http://www.dayguest.com/rome-dayuse/concierge
http://www.dayguest.com/rome-dayuse/air-conditioning
As you can see, the pages are identical, except that one has 5 properties and the other one has 6. Most overlap. There are so manies property "features" or "category", that some list have exactly the same list. Actually, SEOMOZ find that I have over 1700 pages with duplicate content, most being search results page with closely similar contents such as these.
Hence my issue...
-
Are they duplicates in the sense that there are currently no results? I wouldn't generally use rel=canonical on these, because the search results should (theoretically) be different. These are distinct regions and, I assume, have unique properties.
If they're just returning no results, I'd actually consider a META NOINDEX until there are results available. Otherwise, this is likely to be treated as a soft 404 by Google (not a disaster, honestly). It depends on whether results come and go or if you're just building out the site and there will be data later. If the data isn't ready, I think META NOINDEX is a good way to go. Until results are available, these pages have no search value.
-
Well, let me give you an example, look at this page: http://www.dayguest.com/milan-city-centre-dayuse?amenities=10
And this page: http://www.dayguest.com/milan-central-station-dayuse?amenities=10
Do you see what I'm talking about? The pages are identical but for the page title/description & a few words on the page.
So, you'd go for canonical?
-
The relation is more hierarchal then next/previous. Judging from the post you mentioned, canonical would be more appropriate...
-
Sorry, I'm not clear on whether these are paginated search results or actual property pages that vary only by a small amount. As @SEO5 said, if these are paginated search results, you could use rel=prev/next. It's a bit tricky to set up with search filters (you need rel=prev/next + rel=canonical).
If these are nearly identical property pages, then it depends on how they differ. If they only differ by one attribute, I'd probably lean toward the canonical tag.
-
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
-
Old pages not mobile friendly - new pages in process but don't want to upset current traffic.
Working with a new client. They have what I would describe as two virtual websites. Same domain but different coding, navigation and structure. Old virtual website pages fail mobile friendly, they were not designed to be responsive ( there really is no way to fix them) but they are ranking and getting traffic. New virtual website pages pass mobile friendly but are not SEO optimized yet and are not ranking and not getting organic traffic. My understanding is NOT mobile friendly is a "site" designation and although the offending pages are listed it is not a "page" designation. Is this correct? If my understanding is true what would be the best way to hold onto the rankings and traffic generated by old virtual website pages and resolve the "NOT mobile friendly" problem until the new virtual website pages have surpassed the old pages in ranking and traffic? A proposal was made to redirect any mobile traffic on the old virtual website pages to mobile friendly pages. What will happen to SEO if this is done? The pages would pass mobile friendly because they would go to mobile friendly pages, I assume, but what about link equity? Would they see a drop in traffic ? Any thoughts? Thanks, Toni
Technical SEO | | Toni70 -
Very wierd pages. 2900 403 errors in page crawl for a site that only has 140 pages.
Hi there, I just made a crawl of the website of one of my clients with the crawl tool from moz. I have 2900 403 errors and there is only 140 pages on the website. I will give an exemple of what the crawl error gives me. | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | | | | | | | | | | There are 2900 pages like this. I have tried visiting the pages and they work, but they are only html pages without CSS. Can you guys help me to see what the problems is. We have experienced huge drops in traffic since Septembre.
Technical SEO | | H.M.N.0 -
Rel-canonical and meta data
Hey Mozzers, Help please. I am migrating content for a new website (1000's of pages) and am using the canonical tag on a number of pages. For the pages which I am asking Google not to recognise / index as the master version, and in the interests of time do I need to take the time to fill in the meta <title><description> etc each time?</p> <p>Ben</p></title>
Technical SEO | | Bendall0 -
When creating parent and child pages should key words be repeated in url and page title?
We are in the direct mail advertising business: PrintLabelAndMail.com Example: Parent:
Technical SEO | | JimDirectMailCoach
Postcard Direct Mail Children:
Postcard Mailings
Postcard Design
Postcard Samples
Postcard Pricing
Postcard Advantages should "postcard" be repeated in the URL and Page Title? and in this example should each of the 5 children link back directly to the parent or would it be better to "daisy chain" them using each as parent for the next?0 -
Why are these pages duplicates when canonical is defined?
The SEOmoz reports indicate that the following pages are duplicates even though the canonical tag has been added. http://www.designquotes.com.au/dq/web/get-quotes/quotes http://www.designquotes.com.au/dq/web/get-quotes/brief Is this normal?
Technical SEO | | designquotes0 -
Will rel canonical tags remove previously indexed URLs?
Hello, 7 days ago, we implemented canonical tags to resolve duplicate content issues that had been caused by URL parameters. These "duplicate content" had already been indexed. Now that the URLs have rel canonical tags in place, will Google automatically remove from its index the other URLs with the URL parameters? I ask because we have been tracking the approximate number of URLs indexed by doing a site: search in Google, and we have barely noticed a decrease in URLs indexed. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | yacpro130 -
Canonical Issues
Hi Guys, I have a technical question. Ive started optimising an ecommerce site for a client and come across some duplicate content issues:- This page: http://www.bracknelllamps.com/projector-manufacturer/SANYO/70 is actually indexed in Google as:- http://www.bracknelllamps.com/projector-lamps.php?make=SANYO Both pages have the same content and I'm guessing the indexed page refers to an old way of navigating the site. As I'm concerned about duplicate content issues, what's the best approach as this seems to be the case for all 'projector manufacturer' pages. would it be to 301 redirect each manufacturer url (this could take forever with 107) manufacturers or rel="canonical" tag? to show Google which page I want indexing? Kind Regards Neil
Technical SEO | | nezona0 -
Page not Accesible for crawler in on-page report
Hi All, We started using SEOMoz this week and ran into an issue regarding the crawler access in the on-page report module. The attached screen shot shows that the HTTP status is 200 but SEOMoz still says that the page is not accessible for crawlers. What could this be? Page in question
Technical SEO | | TiasNimbas
http://www.tiasnimbas.edu/Executive_MBA/pgeId=307 Regards, Coen SEOMoz.png0