What if I point my canonicals to a URL version that is not used in internal links
-
My web developer has pointed the "good" URLs that I use in my internal link structure (top-nav/footer) to another duplicate version of my pages. Now the URLs that receive all the canonical link value are not the ones I use on my website. is this a problem and why???
In theory the implementation is good because both have equal content. But does it harm my link equity if it directs to a URL which is not included in my internal link architecture.
-
Thanks again. I hope Google will come out with some real guidelines on this subject. It saves us time arguing with third parties.
For now I will get the canonicals fixed.
-
I think Andy's absolutely right - I've seen too many situations where mixed signals caused crawl/index and even ranking problems. Ultimately, the canonical URL should be canonical in practice and used consistently. Otherwise the canonical tag is just a band-aid.
The other problem is that you naturally end up attracting links to your non-canonical URLs, because those are what people can see. Long-term, that compounds the situation.
Now, is it catastrophic? Unfortunately, that's really tough to say. I've seen situations where Google honored the canonical tag even without internal links and the site was ok. I just think it's a significant, unnecessary risk. Unfortunately, like Andy, I don't know of any clear documentation on the subject.
-
It certainly can't hurt. You might get someone pointing you to documentation relating to this exact problem
Andy
-
I don't know of anything that will explicitly tell you not to do this, but you can find lots of general information here:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
Andy
-
Allright, maybe a good question for the Google Webmaster Help Forum right?
-
Hi Andy,
I agree, it does not seem like a logical solution. Do you know of any documentation on this, maybe even from Google? I would like to give some guidelines to my web developer based on a source.
-
Quite honestly, I would never use a canonical to point to a page that no-one can navigate to. If I were Google, I would look at this and wonder if it was a recommended page, why then was this not the one people can just click on.
Andy
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
-
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Avoid too many internal links
My site is being flagged in Page Optimization Score for "Avoid too many internal links", but the warning doe snot tell me how many internal links are on a page. How can I find this?
Technical SEO | | Zambezikid0 -
Internal Links issue in webmaster
we implemented our website on the basis of WordPress, then we migrate our website to PHP (YII Framework). after a while, we found out an issue around internal links which they were increasing severely. when we check our landing pages in webmaster (for example Price list), in contains 300 internal links but the reality is that there are no href tags on this page. it seems that webmaster calculate most of our links with the links of a single page and show them to us. is it natural or a mis configuration has been happened? Yh1NzPl
Technical SEO | | jacelyn_wiren0 -
Should you use google url remover if older indexed pages are still being kept?
Hello, A client recently did a redesign a few months ago, resulting in 700 pages being reduced to 60, mostly due to panda penalty and just low interest in products on those pages. Now google is still indexing a good number of them ( around 650 ) when we only have 70 on our sitemap. Thing is google indexes our site on average now for 115 urls when we only have 60 urls that need indexing and only 70 on our sitemap. I would of thought these urls would be crawled and not found, but is taking a very long period of time. Our rankings haven't recovered as much as we'd hope, and we believe that the indexed older pages are causes this. Would you agree and also would you think removing those old urls via the remover tool would be best option? It would mean using the url remover tool for 650 pages. Thank you in advance
Technical SEO | | Deacyde0 -
URL Change, Old URLs Still In Index
Recently changed URLs on a website to remove dynamic parameters. We 301'd the old dynamic links (canonical version) to the cleaner parameter-free URLs. We then updated the canonical tags to reflect these changes. All pages dropped at least a few ranking positions and now Moz shows both the new page ranking slightly lower in results pages and the old page still in the index. I feel like I'm splitting value between the two page versions until the old one disappears... is there a way to consolidate this quickly?
Technical SEO | | ShawnW0 -
Affiliate Link is Trumping Homepage - URL parameter handling?
An odd and slightly scary thing happened today: we saw an affiliate string version of our homepage ranking number one for our brand, along with the normal full set of site-links. We have done the following: 1. Added this to our robots.txt : User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | LawrenceNeal
Disallow: /*? 2. Reinserted a canonical on the homepage (we had removed this when we implemented hreflang as had read the two interfered with each other. We haven't had canonical for a long time now without issue. Is this anything to do with the algo update perhaps?! The third thing we're reviewing I'm slightly confused about: URL Parameter Handling in GWT. As advised - with regard to affiliate strings - to the question: "Does this parameter change page content seen by the user?" We have NO selected, which means they should be crawling one representative URL. But isn't it the case that we don't want them crawling or indexing ANY affiliate URLs? You can specify Googlebot to not crawl any of particular string, but only if you select: "Yes. The parameter changes the page content." Should they know an affiliate URL from the original and not index them? I read a quote from Matt Cutts which suggested this (along with putting a "nofollow" tag in affiliate links just in case) Any advice in this area would be appreciated. Thanks.0 -
Do canonical tags pass all of the link juice onto the URL they point to?
I have an ecommerce website where the category pages have various sorting and paging options which add a suffix to the URLs. My site is setup so the root category URL, domain.com/category-name, has a canonical tag pointing to domain.com/category-name/page1/price however all links, both interner & external, point to the former (i.e. domain.com/category-name). I would like to know whether all of the link juice is being passed onto the canonical tag URL? Otherwise should I change the canonical tag to point the other way? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | tjhossy0 -
Internal Links not Crawled by Open Site Explorer
Can someone plz tell me why www.hotelelgreco.gr has only 2 internal links in OSE despite the fact that the text content has a plethora of them. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | socrateskirtsios0