Canonical tag - but Title and Description are slightly different
-
I am building a new SEO site with a "Silo" / Themed architecture. I have a travel website selling hotel reservations. I list a hotel page under a city page - example, www.abc.com/Dallas/Hilton.html Then I use that same property under a segment within the city - example www.abc.com/Dallas/Downtown/Hilton.html, so there are two URLs with the same content
Both pages are identical, except I want to customize the Title and Description. I want to customize the title and description to build a consistent theme - for example the /Downtown/Hilton page will have the words "Near Downtown" in the Title and Description, while the primary city Hilton page will not. So I have two questions about this.
-
First, is it okay to use a canonical tag if the Title and Description are slightly different? Everything else is identical.
-
If so, will Google crawl and comprehend the unique Title and Description on the "Downtown" silo?
I want Google to see that I have several "supporting" pages to my main landing page(s). I want to present to Google 5 supporting pages in each silo that each has a supporting keyword theme. But I'm not sure if Google will consider content of pages that point to a different page using the canonical tag.
Please see this supporting example: http://d.pr/i/aQPv
Thanks for your insights.
Rob
-
-
Kurt,
Just wanted to let you know, I decided to go with option 1 above. This is the long route, but the purest form of SEO. It will cost me more money up front, and will take time to develop, but I think its our best bet for the long run.
Thanks again for your help. I understand the canonical tag better now.
Rob
-
Kurt,
Thanks again for your insights. I appreciate you taking the time to comprehend my question so thoroughly. I am still learning this, and its good to get your input. I am leaning toward doing this without a canonical tag. I still feel that by adding the canonical tag it should send a clear signal to Google that I'm not trying to manipulate the results, as I'm effectively removing those pages from the index. But if they "think" (and thats all that matters) I'm trying something wrong, then its probably not worth it.
I'll have to think about what my best course of action is, as this will have a big impact on how I proceed.
Thanks again for your input. I do appreciate it.
Best,
Rob
-
The canonical tag is telling Google to treat that canonical URL as the URL you want them to consider for the content. It can be used to give credit when you use someone else's content, point Google to the page you want them to list when you have duplicates of your own content, or assist in moving pages from one URL to another (adding a 301 redirect later) Honestly, I've never heard of someone trying to do what you are suggesting. I'm not sure exactly how Google would treat that.
As to whether Google would consider what you're doing as spam, it's a matter of degrees. If you're doing it a lot, then it's possible they might apply a manual action. If it's not enough to warrant an action, they may just disregard all but one of the duplicate versions of each page. Maybe nothing will happen and Google won't notice. What I can tell you is that they would consider it manipulation if they notice it.
The simple fact is this. You could just have one version of the supporting pages and link to that one version from each of the relevant main pages. There are only two reasons you'd want different versions of the supporting pages. Either you want to hone the content to get the best conversion rate from users, in which case each page wouldn't actually be duplicate, or you want to manipulate the search rankings by creating a bunch of duplicates of the exact same page to target different keywords. Clearly, since you don't want to work on the content of each version, you are solely doing this to manipulate the search rankings when the same user experience could be achieved with one copy of the page.
Please also understand that this isn't personal. I don't have a problem with what you're doing. Just be aware that it comes with risks. If Google discovers it, they may treat a bunch of your pages as duplicates and may even penalize your site and you be back in the forums in a few months asking how to deal with the fact that your rankings just disappeared overnight. You just have to decide if your willing to take that risk.
-
One more thought.
I could see Google seeing my strategy as manipulation - trying to rank the same piece of content for multiple keywords if I didn't have a canonical tag on the page.
But if I reference one page and designate it as canonical I would think that removes the spam aspect. Do you agree with this?
What I'm not sure about though is how does Google read a page with a canonical tag on it. Will they ignore the unique title and description - and I lose the "supporting" pages on my other silos.
I appreciate your inputs on this - and i'm not trying to argue, just hoping (maybe in vain) I can find an alternative to the 2 options you present above.
Best,
Rob
-
Thanks for your response Kurt.
This is slowly coming to me. But if I have five duplicate versions of a hotel property page, and reference one of them as canonical, I would be fine if Google disregarded the other 4 as I only need to rank for one of those pages.
What I do want to accomplish though, is get a ranking boost for the main page in the silo(s). I'm hoping that the supporting pages (which are duplicates and have a canonical tag on them) will provide some lift to the top level page in the silo.
Example: keyword "hotels in downtown Dallas" www.abc.com/hotels-in-dallas/downtown/ to get a boost from supporting pages which also have the term "near downtown Dallas" in their title / description.
Are you saying that Google will not even recognize the unique title / description of the property pages below - because they have a canonical tag referencing a different page?
If that is the case, then you are right, I am left with the two options you give above. I don't really like either scenario as option 1 is a lot more work and money, and option 2 really dilutes my theme. Are you sure that Google considers what I want to do as spam - even though its completely legit? Just want to double check.
Best,
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
I understand what you're trying to do and why; however, you need to understand that it's something the search engines (Google in particular) don't like. Creating a bunch of duplicate pages to try to target different, similar keywords is considered manipulation, even if each of those keywords are relevant. The search engines want unique content for different pages.
In regards to the canonical tag, the pages don't have to be completely exact to use the canonical tag. After all, it's recommended that if one site uses content from another, they use the canonical tag to give the original site credit. But there will be lots of different content on the two pages since they'll have unique headers, navigation menus, footers, and possibly title and description tags. However, using canonical tags the way you are suggesting will defeat your own purpose. If you have 5 different duplicate versions of the page and setup canonical tags on each to point to one of them, Google is only going to consider that one page. The others will most likely be disregarded. Thus, you still won't get the rankings boost for the optimized title and description tags on the other duplicate versions.
It seems to me you have two options that don't run afowl of Google.
- Create different pages for each silo and have unique content for each of those pages. Not only does this give the search engines what they want, but you have more opportunity to optimize the content for the keywords you are targeting. Of course it will take a lot more work.
- Have only one version of each page, but optimize it for each of the targeted keywords. This is probably less effective since the optimization will get diluted by targeting so many keywords in the content, but it will be a lot less work.
Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Thanks Federico,
I think I understand what your recommending. I just have one more thing to clarify.
I plan to build landing pages for a variety of city hotel related terms such as:
"hotels in Dallas"
"hotels in downtown Dallas"
"hotels with suites in Dallas"
"three star hotels in Dallas"
"hotels with pools in Dallas"Its quite possible that one hotel fits in all of those silos. So my thought was I would write content for a property one time, and re-use that page in multiple silos. I am not trying to mislead search engines, just optimizing for a variety of "facts" about that property.
I know the canonical tag can be used across domains, so I'm assuming its fine to use it here, even though there is a slight variation in the Title and Description. What I don't know is whether or not Google will read a page when it encounters a canonical tag, or does it simply stop at that point, and reference the root page. I'm hoping that I can build a consistently themed silo - all pages with a common keyword. Given that Google allows users to navigate to the URL of pages that have a canonical tag on them, I'm hoping that Google sees that content, and recognizes me as a subject matter expert.
If I can't use the canonical tag, then I would be forced to write different content multiple times for the same property page...
Thanks for your advice on this.
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
I personally wouldn't go the way you are heading... that could be seen by Google as a technique to manipulate search engine results (which you stated it is).
But to respond to your question, why don't you use the "definitive" version of the page as the canonical? If the one including "near downtown" is the most accurate (and complete one as I guess the hotel IS near downtown) then you should go with that and noindex the alternatives... although I know that's not your intention, that is the way it should be done.
Hope that helps!
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
-
Canonical Issue On AMP
Hi everyone,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MuhammadQasimAttari
I have one issue about canonical. kindly guide me about it. I have a site example.com/abc and I convert it on an amp and know its URLs is example.com/abc=?amp. but the search console tells me to add the proper canonical URL but both pages are the same. kindly guide me about it. what will I do?0 -
Are there any downsides to using a canonical tag temporarily?
I'm working on redesigning our website. One of the content types has a main archive page (/success-stories) containing all of the success stories (written by graduates of our program). Because we plan to have success stories for other people (non-graduates), I'm using category hierarchies (/success-stories/graduates and success-stories/nonprofits, for example). It will go one level deeper to organize graduates by graduation year (/success-stories/graduates/%year%). I think this will work out well. However, we won't have non-graduate success stories for a little while, probably at least a few weeks, which means that /success-stories and /.../graduates indices will contain the same content for a while. So my question is this: Will it hurt to use a canonical tag that points to /success-stories/graduates as the authority until the main archive page contains more than just graduates? Or would it be better to use a 302 redirect from /success-stories to /.../graduates until more diverse content is added?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bcaples0 -
Meta-description issue in SERPs for different countries
I'm working with a US client on the SEO for their large ecommerce website, I'm working on it from the UK. We've now optimised several of the pages including updating the meta-descriptions etc. The problem is when I search on the keyword iin the UK I see the new updated version of the meta-description in SERPs results. BUT when my client searches on the same keyword in the US they're see the old version of the meta-description. Does any one have any idea why this is happening and how we can resolve it? Thanks Tanya
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TanyaKorteling0 -
Meta description duplication
Hello, What does google mean by don't duplicate your meta description. For example if I my meta says : Stunning golf holidays in Florida , call xxxx and book today. and I have another page with golf holiday but in ireland this time. If I write Stunning golf holidays in Ireland , call xxxx and book today. Is it considered duplicate ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Page Title Tag operands , - |
Hi, Anyone have any good suggestions about using commas, hyphens, vertical bar in the title tag and how it affects rankings? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20100 -
Intra-linking to pages with a different Canonical url ?
Hello Moz Community! I'm hoping to get some advice around intra-linking practices and the benefits when a page that is being linked to has a different canonical tag than it's own URL. Confused? Allow me to elaborate. Scenario: Background: Ecommerce Company is trying to increase its organic ranking for key, broad terms in the cycling industry. Ecommerce company is trying to rank its category pages for a main term. To help this, the company focusing on increasing the quality of its intra-linking structure (the links and anchor texts that link to another page within the site). Example goal: to have it's Road Cassettes category page rank for 'Road Cassettes' Company's 'cassettes' main category page is here: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/ And the company uses filtered navigation logic to drill down into 'road cassettes' specifically: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/?page_no=1&fq=ATR_RoadBiking:True SEOs are instructed to include occasional links back to this page, with SEO friendly anchor text, to help strengthen it's authority for the main term. The Issue / Question: Main category URL: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/ Road Cassettes category URL: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/?page_no=1&fq=ATR_RoadBiking:True Road Cassettes Canonical URL: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/ The canonical URL of the filtered Road Cassettes category is its main category URL. Will Company be able to effectively rank its Road Cassettes category URL for 'Road Cassettes' if the canonical URL is the main category? Should the canonical URL not be the main category? OR Will increasing the intra-linking to the Road Cassettes URL help the main category URL rank for 'Road Cassettes' - by passing all it's authority?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ray-pp0 -
Rel Canonical on Home Page
I have a client who says they can't implement a 301 on their home page. They have tow different urls for their home page that are live and do not redirect. I know that the best solution would be to redirect one to the main URL but they say this isn't possible. So they implemented the rel canonical instead. Is this the second best solution for them if they can't redirect? Will the link juice be passed through the rel canonical? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlightAnalytics0 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0