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.
-
you can test it out and remove the canonical for the not fully equivalent pages ... and unfortunately there is no other solution than a canonical to fix the pages that have a fully equivalent content.
just test it out and keep a close eye on it and please do update this thread
thank u
-
Thanks Wissam. I posted the same question in a Google forum and was told that I should remove the canonical reference (but retain the hrelang elements) as some of the content was not entirely identical and had regional differences.
I've asked whether I should do the same (i.e not specify a canonical) when the content is entirely identical but equally relevant to different countries. Would the hreflang be enough to prevent them being considered duplicate?
-
Hi Simon
I think the implementation you did on the site is confusing and wrong.
you consolidated ur au to the .com domain without specifying which folder or subdomainis the au section is.
previously because you have the .com.au in the domain Google understood that signal that this website is relevant to au visitors. but when you consolidated to the .com you need now to TELL or HINT to Google (through Google Webmaster Tools) where the whole domain that was targeting this country went.
and HREFLANG is not about Geotargeting but about the Language.
-
Hi Wissam, yes indeed all the pages are informative article pages. I want each country specific version to rank highly in it's own country i.e en-us article to rank in US, en-au in Australia etc. Does specifying a canonical strangle your ranking in all the other countries?
-
Google has actually updated their Google webmaster help section of the hreflang and remove the reference of rel canonical because people tend to get confused and implemented incorrectly.
so my question to you are these pages informational pages? are they fully equivalent to the others ? in aus and us ?
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
-
AU and US site needs Hreflang?
Hi guys, Just want to confirm if we need some SEO actions on two of our sites. Example:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brandonegroup
https://www.example.com.au/collections/dresses
https://exampleamerica.com/collections/dresses Will the domain naming will fix the issue of possible duplication?
Do we still need to implement hreflang markups?0 -
Confusing mixture of cross-domain and multi-language - HREFLANG
Hi Mozzers, I am working for an international client, in a highly regulated industry. As such, their international set-up is slightly confusing. They currently operate websites across multiple countries (with ccTLDs), as well as a global .com. E.g: domain.co.uk domain.it domain. es domain.com etc. Additionally, they offer multiple languages across each of these domains, which often cross over. E.g: domain.co.uk/en/, domain.co.uk/fr/, domain.co.uk/de/ domain.es/en/, domain.es/es/ domain.it/en/, domain.it/it/ domain.com/en/, domain.com/es/, domain.com/fr/, domain.com/de/ They are not currently using HREFLANG of any sort. Using EN as an example, this results in 6 URLs showing the same content, albeit for different languages/locations: Main URL domain.co.uk/en/category-A/ hreflang="en-GB" Multi-lingual variants from same domain... domain.co.uk/fr/category-A/ hreflang="fr-GB" domain.co.uk/de/category-A/ hreflang="de-GB" Cross domain variants from other ccTLDs... domain.es/en/category-A/ hreflang="en-ES" domain.it/en/category-A/ hreflang="en-IT" domain.com/en/category-A/ hreflang="en" Can anyone cleverer than myself confirm that the above would be the most effective set-up for this scenario, with each URL referencing each other in this way?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Pan12340 -
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
Multiple hreflang tags pointing to one page from the same country
Hi All, Hypothetically, let’s say a brand established in the UK created the following URL for the Italian market, www.example.com/it/ticket-watch (Ticket watch the made up brand) In this scenario, Ticket Watch is used across multiple services and domains in the UK such as: www.example.com/ticket-watch www.ticketwatch.com/ Essentially, could you point multiple ticket watch pages that live on different domains so that www.example.com/it/ticket-watch could potentially have 4 or 5 tags from the same country (UK), but the self-referencing pages will only have one hreflang tag: canonical and hreflang meta information to be included on www.example.com/it/ticket-watch But the hreflang meta information to be included on www.ticketwatch.com/ will only have one tag I’ve only in included 2 hreflang tags for the for the first example but let’s say there were an additional 2 or 3 GB based ticket watch hreflang tags. Will these tags still be validated? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEONOW1230 -
Using hreflang="en" instead of hreflang="en-gb"
Hello, I have a question in regard to international SEO and the hreflang meta tag. We are currently a B2B business in the UK. Our major market is England with some exceptions of sales internationally. We are wanting to increase our ranking into other english speaking countries and regions such as Ireland and the Channel Islands. My research has found regional google search engines for Ireland (google.ie), Jersey (google.je) and Guernsey (google.gg). Now, all the regions have English as one their main language and here is my questions. Because I use hreflang=“en-gb” as my site language, am I regional excluding these countries and islands? If I used hreflang=“en” would it include these english speaking regions and possible increase the ranking on these the regional search engines? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SilverStar11 -
Can multiple geotargeting hreflang tags be set in one URL? International SEO question
Hi All, I have a question please. If i target www.onedirect.co.nl/en/ in English for Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, are the tags below correct? English for Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg: http://www.example.co.nl/en/" hreflang="en-nl" /> http://www.example.co.nl/en/" hreflang="en-be" /> http://www.example.co.nl/en/" hreflang="en-lu" /> AND Targeting Holland and Belgium in Dutch: Pour la page www.onedirect.co.nl on peut inclure ce tag: http://www.example.co.nl" hreflang="nl-nl" /> http://www.example.co.nl" hreflang="nl-be" /> thanks a lot for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Onedirect_uk0 -
Using rel=alternate hreflang element on ccTLDs
We have multilingual websites with some content variations but 60% of the content on site remains the same. Is it still advisable to use:rel=alternate hreflang option on ccTLDs when ccTLDs are in itself strong signal for Google to display result in respective countries 1. example.com 2. example.co.uk 3. example.co.jp 4. example.de
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CyrilWilson0 -
To canonicalize an old site to a VERY young one
Hi,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Greywolf
The situation is I have an old e-commerce site with good Pagreank (13 yrs old) and a new 3 month old site. Currently with duplicate content because it's e-commerce site. The old site has two languages on each product page, the new site only English. Traffic to old site is half English, half the traffic is the other language.
Question is should I canonicalise to the new 3 month old domain that's only got English content at the moment? Soon it will also have both languages, but proper multi-lingual. The old site is meant to be for wholesalers, the new site for end-users. So the new site should get all the SE traffic it can get, I amnot worried about the old site not getting much because it has established userbase. If I canonicalise now, will I lose all the non English traffic to the old site? And is it a good idea to canonicalise to such a young domain? (on same IP C Block) What would you do?0