High level rel=canonical conceptual question
-
Hi community. Your advice and perspective is greatly appreciated.
We are doing a site replatform and I fear that serious SEO fundamentals were overlooked and I am not getting straight answers to a simple question: How are we communicating to search engines the single URL we want indexed?
Backstory: Current site has major duplicate content issues. Rel-canonical is not used. There are currently 2 versions of every category and product detail page. Both are indexed in certain instances. A 60 page audit has recommends rel=canonical at least 10 times for the similar situations an ecommerce site has with dupe urls/content.
New site: We are rolling out 2 URLS AGAIN!!! URL A is an internal URL generated by the systerm. We have developed this fancy dynamic sitemap generator which looks/maps to URL A and creates a SEO optimized URL that I call URL B. URL B is then inserted into the site map and the sitemap is communicated externally to google. URL B does an internal 301 redirect back to URL A...so in an essence, the URL a customer sees is not the same as what we want google to see.
I still think there is potential for duplicate indexing. What do you think?
Is rel=canonical the answer?
In my research on this site, past projects and google I think the correct solution is this on each customer facing category and pdp:
The head section (With the optimized Meta Title and Meta Description) needs to have the rel-canonical pointing to URL B
example of the meta area of URL A:What do you think? I am open to all ideas and I can provide more details if needed.
-
Yes, if you redirect URL B, it will not be indexed as content. It will be ignored by Google.
Well... Not ignored, but Google will acknowledge the URL B shouldn't be indexed.
-
Hi guys. I have researched and discussed further.
According to your thoughts, the rel=canonical and 301 redirect in the description in the original post will conflict with each other.
In all honestly, I stated that rel=canonical is being used (I am fighting for it) but it is not in the future state plan.
I will restate a similar situation (with what I think the same outcome is). If we 301 redirect URL B (optimized in sitemap) back to URL A (system generated) without rel=canonical then ultimately we are saying "don't index URL b"???
-
I will verify the fine details of the internal 301 redirect. The entire process as described to me seems a bit fishy also. The developers keep saying "the site map is the only thing that will be indexed" which we know is false.
Ultimately the real solution was getting URL A to be the most optimized.
Thanks, and more to com
-
HI,
I think you are going to have problems as you describe it (if I understood it correctly). 301s and canonicals are not the same thing, the 301 is actually taking you to the second page, the canonical is suggesting which page you want to be considered the main page to index. In your case you are declaring pageB in the sitemp, 301ing that to pageA and then recommending pageB be considered the main page (which is 301ing back to pageA again). The results of that is difficult to predict to say the least. I would think the most likely result is your pageA results being indexed, but only after making life difficult for googlebot et al by running them through this loop.
Is there no chance of fixing the cms so that the pageB urls can be displayed properly without a 301?
-
I don't understand the purpose of the 301 redirect. If you are redirecting your fancy URL, that is "SEO optimized"-- then you are doing nothing. The only thing that will be indexed will be the non-fancy URL. If you 301 redirect anything, that page will not be indexed, so making a keyword-rich URL is useless. Instead, I would use only canonical tags.
So, for example, let's say you have a product page. And it's at example.com/product-name/
But it's also in other places example.com/tags/vases/product-name/
General accepted SEO practices would say that all of the additional or supplemental pages should have the rel=canonical point to the "original." (Not redirected back to the original.)
However, because Google seems to be favoring breadcrumbs more than ever-- you might want to pick a page with breadcrumbs (Page B) and make that page the canonical. You could try it both ways with different products and see how it goes.
Now, please bear in mind that I just thought of this as I was answering your question, and this is just something to think about- I haven't actually tried this, but I might...
In other words, if I had:
example.com/400-watt-halide-bulb/
but I also had it in:
example.com/light-bulbs/halide/400-watt-halide-bulb/
I might point all examples of that product to the longer, breadcrumbed URL with the canonical link. But again, just thinking out loud.
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
-
Canonicals Passing Link Juice?
After having read this thread, the answer seems to be a tentative "Yes", but I am curious if I am doing this wrong, or causing myself problems, for a specific situation. We have a thread on the forums that has over 50,000 views for that thread alone. No doubt many people have linked to it across the web, and it ranks very well with Google. But we are dealing with a major problem in that the main portion of our site (home page and core content) which are the most important, aren't ranking in Google at all. A big part of this is because that part of the site hasn't been updated in years, whereas the forum is updated daily. By users. We've begun putting out quality content in our News Center lately, and hoping to start boosting its presence in Google. We have an article on the exact same topic that the forum thread covers. I was thinking of putting a canonical on that thread, pointing to the article, and hopefully pointing some very powerful link juice, popularity, and traffic into our news center articles. People can comment there as well if they like. Are there any potential downsides to doing this? My hope is that the forum thread loses rankings and the article takes on its rankings. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HLTalk1 -
Canonical and Rel=next/prev Implementation
Hi, I have an ecommerce site that allows users to view numerous pages and sort by a number of options on categories. I've read numerous posts around my issue but am still a little confused on what is best practice with regards to the canonical tag and rel=next and prev. Below is an example of the various page/sort by URL's: Paginated URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?p=3 Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price Paginated & Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price&p=3 It is not viable for us to use a canonical tag to the view all page as some of the categories contain a large number of products and therefore would not have the best load speeds. Is it best to use the below structure when it comes to the canonical tag and rel=next and prev? Paginated URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?p=3 Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price Paginated & Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price&p=3 http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price&p=2" /> Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GrappleAgency0 -
Do I need to use rel="canonical" on pages with no external links?
I know having rel="canonical" for each page on my website is not a bad practice... but how necessary is it for pages that don't have any external links pointing to them? I have my own opinions on this, to be fair - but I'd love to get a consensus before I start trying to customize which URLs have/don't have it included. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netrepid0 -
Reinforcing Rel Canonical? (Fixing Duplicate Content)
Hi Mozzers, We're having trouble with duplicate content between two sites, so we're looking to add some oomph to the rel canonical link elements we put on one of our sites pointing towards the other to help speed up the process and give Google a bigger hint. Would adding a hyperlink on the "copying" website pointing towards the "original" website speed this process up? Would we get in trouble if added about 80,000 links (1 on each product page) with a link to the matching product on the other site? For example, we could use text like "Buy XY product on Other Brand Name and receive 10% off!"
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W0 -
Trailing slash and rel="canonical"
Our website is in a directory format: http://www.website.com/website.asp Our homepage display URL is http://www.website.com which currently matches our to eliminate the possibility of duplicate content. However, I noticed that in the SERPs, google displays the homepage with a trailing slash http://www.website.com/ My question: should I change the rel="canonical" to have a trailing slash? I noticed one of our competitors uses the trailing slash in their rel="canonical" Do potential benefits outweigh the risks? I can PM further information if necessary. Thanks for the assistance in advance...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BethA0 -
Question about 301 redirect for trailing / ?
I am cleaning up a fairly large site. Some pages have a trailing slash on the end some don't. Some of the existing backlinks built used a trailing slash in the url and some didn't. We aren't concerned with picking a particular one but just want to get one set and stick to it from now on. I am wondering, would I clean this up within the same redirect in the htaccess file that takes care of the www and non www? example RewriteEngine On
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PEnterprises
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.domain.com/ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [L,R=301] I currently use that to redirect the www. to the non www as you can see. However here is what I was confused about. Would this code be enough to redirect ALL pages with a / to the ones without? or would I also need to add another code (so there is 2) to my htaccess like below? RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com/ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [L,R=301] RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.domain.com/ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [L,R=301] That way, now, even the non www pages with a trailing slash will redirect to the non www without the trailing slash. Hopefully you understand what I am getting at. I just want to redirect EVERYTHING to the non www WITHOUT a / Thank you Jake0 -
Pagination with rel=“next” and rel=“prev”
Hey mozzers Would be interested to know if anyone has used the rel=“next” and rel=“prev” attributes more info here http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html If you have used it, has it worked and what are your thoughts etc:? And for those that have used it, is it a better way of handling pagination other than the obvious of Google saying so. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CraigAddyman0
