If Google's index contains multiple URLs for my homepage, does that mean the canonical tag is not working?
-
I have a site which is using canonical tags on all pages, however not all duplicate versions of the homepage are 301'd due to a limitation in the hosting platform. So some site visitors get www.example.com/default.aspx while others just get www.example.com. I can see the correct canonical tag on the source code of both versions of this homepage, but when I search Google for the specific URL "www.example.com/default.aspx" I see that they've indexed that specific URL as well as the "clean" one. Is this a concern... shouldn't Google only show me the clean URL?
-
In most cases, Google does seem to "de-index" the non-canonical URL, if they process they tag. I put in quotes just because, technically, the page is still in Google's index - as soon as it's not showing up at all (including with "site:"), though, I essentially consider that to be de-indexed. If we can't see it, it might as well not be there.
If 301-ing isn't an option, I'd double-check a few things:
(1) Is the non-canonical page ranking for anything (including very long-tail terms)?
(2) Are there any internal links to the non-canonical URL? These can send a strongly mixed signal.
(3) Are there any other mixed signals that might be throwing off the canonical? Examples include canonicals on other pages that contradict this one, 301s/302s that override the canonical, etc.
-
As Digital-Diameter said, the best choice for fixing this problem is a 301. A Canonical tag can eventually lead to the incorrect URL being replaced by the correct one in the SERPs but it is also important to note that the Rel=canonical tag is a suggestion, not a directive. What this means is that the search engines will take it into consideration but may choose not to follow it.
-
Technically, rel=canonical tags can still leave a page indexed, they simply pass authority for Google. From your question I can tell you know this, but I do have to say that 301's are the best way to address this. Blocking a page with robots.txt can help as well, but this just stops Google from crawling a page, the page can still be indexed again.
If you have pages or versions of pages that you do not want indexed you may want to use the no index meta tag. Google's notes here. Be careful though, this will stop these pages from being indexed, but they will still be crawled (though your rel=canonical solution should make this a non-issue).
A few other notes:
In all cases, be sure your internal links point consistently to the URL version you have determined for your home page.
WMT also creates a list of inbound links that are missing or broken. You can use this to help determine any additional 301s that you need.
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
-
My Website stopped being in the Google Index
Hi there, So My website is two weeks old, and I published it and it was ranking at about page 10 or 11 for a week maybe a bit longer. The last few days it dropped off the rankings, which I assumed was the google algorithm doing its thing but when I checked Google Search Console it says my domain is not in the index. 'This page is not in the index, but not because of an error. See the details below to learn why it wasn't indexed.' I click request indexing, then after a bit, it goes green saying it was successfully indexed. Then when I refresh the website it gives me the same message 'This page is not in the index, but not because of an error. See the details below to learn why it wasn't indexed.' Not sure why it says this, any ideas or help is appreciated cheers.
Technical SEO | | sydneygardening0 -
Should 'View All' filters on ecommerce sites be indexable?
Hi, I’m looking at a site at the moment that has a lot of products. For some of their category pages they have a ‘View All’ feature available. The URL uses this structure: domain.com/category/sub-category/product domain.com/category/sub-category/view-all < currently noindex applied Should the view all page be available for indexing? The individual sub-categories and products are indexable My immediate reaction is no, so long as the individual sub-cats are?
Technical SEO | | daniel-brooks0 -
Dev Site Was Indexed By Google
Two of our dev sites(subdomains) were indexed by Google. They have since been made private once we found the problem. Should we take another step to remove the subdomain through robots.txt or just let it ride out? From what I understand, to remove the subdomain from Google we would verify the subdomain on GWT, then give the subdomain it's own robots.txt and disallow everything. Any advice is welcome, I just wanted to discuss this before making a decision.
Technical SEO | | ntsupply0 -
Regarding Canonical Url
We have a e-commerce website. Our own homegrown:-) We recently visited Google Webmaster tools and could see that Google mention we have double Meta tags for some main and subcategories. Each Product Category on our site have a subcategory/ Sub url - "Bestseller", "On Sale", "just arrived". The sub url is not a really a real category and we can therefore not make totally unique description and title for does urls. domain.com/category domain.com/category/bestseller
Technical SEO | | areygie
domain.com/category/on-sale
domain.com/category/just-arrived We are thinking about 2 solutions. 1. Canonical Url on subcategory pointing to main category.
2. Or add a word bestseller, on sale or just arrived in front of the meta title/description. We can do this from code. I personally opt for option 1. But I am little unsure what is the best way to go. Thanks in advance for your advice0 -
Is there actual risk to having multiple URLs that frame in main url? Or is it just bad form and waste of money?
Client has many urls that just frame in the main site. It seems like a total waste of money, but if they are frames, is there an actual risk?
Technical SEO | | gravityseo0 -
Duplicate canonical URLs in WordPress
Hi everyone, I'm driving myself insane trying to figure this one out and am hoping someone has more technical chops than I do. Here's the situation... I'm getting duplicate canonical tags on my pages and posts, one is inside of the WordPress SEO (plugin) commented section, and the other is elsewhere in the header. I am running the latest version of WordPress 3.1.3 and the Genesis framework. After doing some testing and adding the following filters to my functions.php: <code>remove_action('wp_head', 'genesis_canonical'); remove_action('wp_head', 'rel_canonical');</code> ... what I get is this: With the plugin active + NO "remove action" - duplicate canonical tags
Technical SEO | | robertdempsey
With the plugin disabled + NO "remove action" - a single canonical tag
With the plugin disabled + A "remove action" - no canonical tag I have tried using only one of these remove_actions at a time, and then combining them both. Regardless, as long as I have the plugin active I get duplicate canonical tags. Is this a bug in the plugin, perhaps somehow enabling the canonical functionality of WordPress? Thanks for your help everyone. Robert Dempsey0 -
Duplicate content and URL's
Hi Guys, Hope you are all well. Just a quick question which you will find nice and easy 🙂 I am just about to work through duplicate content pages and URL changes. Firstly, With the duplicate content issue i am finding the seo friendly URL i would normally direct to in some cases has less links, authority and root domain to it than some of the unseo friendly URL's. will this harm me if i still 301 redirect them to the seo friendly URL. Also, With the url changed it is going to be a huge job to change all the url so they are friendly and the CMS system is poor. Is there a better way of doing this? It has been suggested that we create a new webpage with a friendly URL and redirect all the pages to that. Will this lose all the weight as it will be a brand new page? Thank you for your help guys your legends!! Cheers Wayne
Technical SEO | | wazza19850