Canonical Expert question!
-
Hello,
I am looking for some help here with an estate agent property web site. I recently finished the MoZ crawling report and noticed that MoZ sees some pages as duplicate, mainly from pages which list properties as page 1,2,3 etc. Here is an example:
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=2
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=3 etc etcNow I know that the best practise says I should set a canonical url to this page:
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=allbut here is where my problem is.
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 contains good written content (around 750 words) before the listed properties are displayed while the "page=all" page do not have that content, only the properties listed.
Also http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 is similar with the originally designed landing page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses
I would like yoru advise as to what is the best way to can url this and sort the problem. My original thoughts were to can=url to this page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses instead of the "page=all" version but your opinion will be highly appreciated.
-
Do "/houses" and "/houses?page=1" have exactly the same content? I'd definitely want to see rel=canonical on the "page=1" version - those are just duplicates. Google has expressly said that they don't want you to canonical pages 2, 3, etc. back to page 1. That doesn't mean it never works, just that it's a bit dicey.
As Chris said, rel=prev/next is another option. Theoretically, it would allow all of the results pages to rank, but let Google know they're a series and not count them against you as thin content. In practice, even my enterprise SEO colleagues have mixed feelings. There's just very limited evidence regarding how effective it is. It is low-risk.
The other option is to go a bit more old-school and META NOINDEX anything with "page=", and just let the original version get indexed and rank. This can help prevent any dilution and would also solve your "page=1" issue. The biggest risk here is if that cut off PR flow across your site or if you had links to the paginated results. In most cases, that's unlikely (people don't link to or tweet page 17 of your search results), but it's a case-by-case thing.
Unfortunately, the "best" solution can be very situational, and even Google isn't very clear about it.
-
It would work but the content after that e.g http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=2 would but lost as they would not be indexed. so if there is content on those pages you feel is valuable might want to look int alternatives however is the strongest content is on http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses you will be fine to set that as the tag location.
-
i have but i was hoping to know if this is solved by adding rel=canonical to the original content landing page? http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses
all page have same content but the text content for some reason appears only on http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses page and on http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 page
-
Have you considered the paginated tag ? you could also have a page with a view all option and canonical to that and thus get all the content listed. Why wouldn't the view all page have the same content as each page ?
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
-
Should the canonical tag for the redirected pages be changed
Hi! Does anyone know if the canonical tag of the old redirected page should be changed, and include the URL of the new destination? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | AnahitG0 -
301 Redirect Timing Questions
Hey all, Quick question on 301 redirects and the timing of creating them when transitioning from an old site to a new site. Does the timing matter? Can redirects interfere with DNS propigation (which seemed to happen to us when we did redirects minutes after redirecting someone's DNS A record to now point to the new site) And lastly, how long AFTER a new site launch can one still submit redirects and not lose the google juice? All the best,
Technical SEO | | WorldWideWebLabs0 -
Duplicate content and rel canonicals?
Hi. I have a question relating to 2 sites that I manage with regards to duplicate content. These are 2 separate companies but the content is off a data base from the one(in other words the same). In terms of the rel canonical, how would we do this so that google does not penalise either site but can also have the content to crawl for both or is this just a dream?
Technical SEO | | ProsperoDigital0 -
Title Keyword Order Question
Hey there, Hoping someone could provide me with an answer / some insight into this. As an example, if I were to be targeting "Fish markets in" and "Fish shops in" as my keyword(s). And my site name was "The Fish Guide". I am trying to populate my title tags as best as possible without sacrificing readability and definitely making an effort to avoid the the spam-factor. Ideally I'd like to rank well (just focusing on titles at the moment, nothing else) when a user searches for "Fish markets in London" and **"Fish shops in London" **or "Fish markets in Los Angeles" or "Fish shops in Berlin" etc. If I were to use the following structure in my titles (in this case for London): "Fish markets and fish shops in London - The Fish Guide" Would this work as I hope? I.E. If a user searched for either "Fish shops in London" or "Fish markets in London" would the format of my title in this example work or would I need to have "Fish Markets in London" and "Fish Shops in London" grouped together? E.G. "Fish Markets in London - Fish Shops in London - The Fish Guide" Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Gorkonola0 -
Disavow questions
Pretty sure I know the answers to these but someone asked me to make absolutely sure so here goes, any opinions welcome: If i disavow a whole domain does it include all sub-domains on the domain also?- my answer is clearly yes. If i have network of links really bad linking to my website that are already nofollow but awful websites to be linked on, is it worth putting them in the disavow list anyway to basically tell Google literally no association? I know the whole point of disavow is to essentially nofollow the link. Opinions much appreciated, thank you guys.
Technical SEO | | tdigital0 -
Rel=Canonical for filter pages
Hi folks, I have a bit of a dilemma that I'd appreciate some advice on. We'll just use the solid wood flooring of our website as an example in this case. We use the rel=canonical tag on the solid wood flooring listings pages where the listings get sorted alphabetically, by price etc.
Technical SEO | | LukeyB30
e.g. http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/?orderBy=highestprice uses the canonical tag to point to http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/ as the main page. However, we also uses filters on our site which allows users to filter their search by more specific product features e.g.
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm/
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/natural-lacquered/ We don't use the canonical tag on these pages because they are great long-tail keyword targeted pages so I want them to rank for phrases like "18mm solid wood flooring". But, in not using the canonical tag, I'm finding google is getting confused and ranking the wrong page as the filters mean there is a huge number of possible URLs for a given list of products. For example, Google ranks this page for the phrase "18mm solid wood flooring" http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm,116mm/ This is no good. This is a combination of two filters and so the listings are very refined, so if someone types the above phrase into Google and lands on this page their first reaction will be "there are not many products here". Google should be ranking the page with only the 18mm filter applied: http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm How would you recommend I go about rectifying this situation?
Thanks, Luke0 -
Rel Canonical question
Hi: I got a report indication 17 rel canonical notices. What does this mean in simple language and how do i go about fixing things?
Technical SEO | | Shaaps0 -
Google Places phone number question
Hi, A hotel/resort has a main phone number of 1-234-567-8901. This phone number is consistent in over 50 directories. However, they have a spa and restaurant with the same phone number. The front-desk answers the phone and routes the call to either the restaurant or spa. The name of the spa and restaurant are also found in the local listing directories under different DBA's with the same phone number as the Hotel/Resort. For example: ABC Resort - 1-234-567-8901 Spa Cuts - 1-234-567-8901 (same address as ABC Resort) The Spa - 1-234-567-8901 ) same address as ABC Resort) Will this phone number that is used by the 3 separate entities penalize the Google listing placements for the actual Hotel/Resort in Google Places? Thanks everyone!
Technical SEO | | hawkvt10