Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
-
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be.
I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation.
My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation.
I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave -
In the past i have seen conanicals take up to 5-6 weeks. My only other advice is to monitor the amount of indexed queries you have in Google. If you know you started with 100+ and over the past three weeks it has dropped down to 50, then it is slowly taking affect (once again, using the site search). If you see the opposite and you notice no change, then perhaps the tag is still incorrect or some other issue?
I can't promise that all of the queried URLs will become un-indexed but the most important thing is the base page ranks the highest when searching.
-
Hi Kyle
Thanks for the response. That is a good point regarding the site:www.... search and in fact all of the results used the correct canonical url with the cached versions showing the same corrected format. The last time the sitemap was downloaded was yesterday so maybe my concern shouldn't be that great. What I'm seeing in webmaster tools does include some of the older content with the parameters but if the SERP's are showing updated versions then maybe that will be flushed out. I am just under the impression that if its in Google Webmaster then its part of Googles overall point of view of your site.
The canonical url updates have been fixed for about 3 weeks.
-
First i would check to see if the update you made to the pages have been recognized by Google. You can do this simply by doing a "site:www.domain.com" search, then view the cached page. If you find that it has not been recognized, you can always resubmit a new xml sitemap to your webmaster tools. In the past i have seen this help speed up the process.
How long ago did you make these updates?
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 to fix thin content issue?
Hello! I've checked my website via Moz and received "thin content" issue: "Your page is considered to have "thin content" if it has less than 50 words" But I definitely know that we have 5 text blocks with unique content, each block consist of more than 50 words. Do you have any ideas what may cause this issue? Thanks in advance, Yana
On-Page Optimization | | yanamazault0 -
How would you improve our URL structure?
Hi Mozzers, I have a question about the URL structure on our website (www.ikwilzitzakken.nl). We now have a main category with "zitzakken" (beanbags). We also have different brands, types and colours. Now we have URL's like this: <a>https://www.ikwilzitzakken.nl/zitzakken/vetsak/vetsak-fs600-flokati-zitzak/_381_w_3544_3862_NL_1</a> which seems long and not clean. Please don't look at the query at the end, we can't do anything about that in our CMS. In english this would be: https://www.iwantbeanbags.nl/beanbags/vetsak/vetsak-fs600-flokati-beanbag/_381_w_3544_3862_NL_1 How would you optimise this? We do have good rankings (this one ranks #1 for example), but I think our overall structure could be way better. Would love your thoughts about this.
On-Page Optimization | | TheOnlineWarp0 -
URL structure
Hello all, I am about to sort out my websites link structure, and was wondering which approach to our services page would be best. should we have: services/digital-marketing & services/website-design etc or: digital-marketing/website-design & digital-marketing/seo Basically I see digital marketing as the top level category that is the umbrella term for all of our digital services. But would it make more sense to have service to be the main category and digital marketing within that (along with all the other services from web design to seo)? all thoughts welcome!
On-Page Optimization | | wseabrook0 -
Should I remove 'local' landing pages? Could these be the cause of traffic drop (duplicate content)?
I have a site that has most of it's traffic from reasonably competitive keywords each with their own landing page. In order to gain more traffic I also created landing pages for counties in the UK and then towns within each county. Each county has around 12 towns landing pages within the county. This has meant I've added around 200 extra pages to my site in order to try and generate more traffic from long tail keywords. I think this may have caused an issue in that it's impossible for me to create unique content for each town/country and therefore I took a 'shortcut' buy creating unique content for each county and used the same content for the towns within it meaning I have lots of pages with the same content just slightly different page titles with a variation on town name. I've duplicated this over about 15 counties meaning I have around 200 pages with only about 15 actual unique pages within them. I think this may actually be harming my site. These pages have been indexed for about a year an I noticed about 6 months ago a drop in traffic by about 50%. Having looked at my analytics this town and county pages actually only account for about 10% of traffic. My question is should I remove these pages and by doing so should I expect an increase in traffic again?
On-Page Optimization | | SamCUK0 -
I want to improve our client's website structure, so he gets more traffic locally. What advice do you have ?
We want to "revamp" our client's website, by improving the overall looking (content, images, structure). Our client is a small retail business but wants to have more traffic. What advice can you give me ?
On-Page Optimization | | marketingmedia.ca0 -
Rel Canonical Warning on most pages
I have an e-commerce website and have recently started using SEO moz. candygalaxy.com is the site. I have over 2000 pages that i am receiving the Rel Canonical notice for, which is essentially everyone of my pages. I'm a little bit confused as to what this means, good or bad... I also have over 1800 pages with to many links. I think this is being caused by the fact that my drop down menus' are quite extensive and begin counted on every page. Any tips on how to make those menu's links not count? So that i can reduce the total number of links per page? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Jonathan_Murrell0 -
What's the impact of # in the main domain page?
After a little research I did in the Source Code of the root domain page of seomoz.org and searchenginejournal.com , I found that the first one contains no at all and that the other contains like 10 . I though that the was something relatively important on a web page for on page optimisation. Did I missed something? What's you opinion on the subject? Thanks for your help!
On-Page Optimization | | Louis-Philippe_Dea0 -
Absolute URLs
Hi, this is a very basic question but I want to confirm, as I remembered it was consider a good practice to use the absolute version of your links when linking to other pages of your site, not for any issue related to passing authority or PageRank, but because if someone scraps your content then they would take the links as well (as if they didn't remove them). Have the practices for internal linking with absolute or realtive URLs changed in any way? Which is the best way? absolute or relative? is there any harm for using the relative version? Relative: Absolute: [](<strong><em>http://www.cheapdomain.com/myfolder/mypage.html)[](<strong><em>http://www.cheapdomain.com/myfolder/mypage.html) [Thanks!](<strong><em>http://www.cheapdomain.com/myfolder/mypage.html)
On-Page Optimization | | andresgmontero0