Indexing of internal search results: canonicalization or noindex?
-
Hi Mozzers,
First time poster here, enjoying the site and the tools very much.
I'm doing SEO for a fairly big ecommerce brand and an issue regarding internal search results has come up.
www.example.com/electronics/iphone/5s/ gives an overview of the the model-specific listings. For certain models there are also color listings, but these are not incorporated in the URL structure.
Here's what Rand has to say in Inbound Marketing & SEO: Insights From The Moz Blog
Search filters are used to narrow an internal search—it could be price, color, features, etc.
Filters are very common on e-commerce sites that sell a wide variety of products. Search filter
URLs look a lot like search sorts, in many cases:
www.example.com/search.php?category=laptop
www.example.com/search.php?category=laptop?price=1000
The solution here is similar to the preceding one—don’t index the filters. As long as Google
has a clear path to products, indexing every variant usually causes more harm than good.I believe using a noindex tag is meant here.
Let's say you want to point users to an overview of listings for black 5s iphones. The URL is an internal search filter which looks as follows:
www.example.com/electronics/apple/iphone/5s?search=black
Which you wish to link with the anchor text "black iphone 5s".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you no-index the black 5s search filters, you lose the equity passed through the link. Whereas if you canonicalize /electronics/apple/iphone/5s you would still leverage the link juice and help you rank for "black iphone 5s". Doesn't it then make more sense to use canonicalization?
-
Hi there,
Just to round this question off, you could canonicalise the query-string URL searching for black iPhones to the iPhone 5s listings page and keep an individual phone's lising at /123456 separate, yes. It's best to keep the canonical tag for truly duplicated or near-duplicated pages, so you would not want to canonicalise an individual product page to a listings page or similar.
-
The tag is good for duplicate content but if /123456 has unique content then you probably don't need the tag on it. I would refrain from trying to implement the tag on ? on larger terms as it will give you a headache.
Some handy tips here- http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization
In Short -
Set up the tag on the filters e.g a page that's the same content but its showing the colour blue then it will feed back the juice to the original but if you've got a page that's not duplicate and has content on it then you could leave it be. Google's pretty clever at working out relationships on pages and duplicate content is not the worse problem for SEO.
Hope that helps!
-
I meant to say that /123456 is an individual listing and /5gs gives an overview of all listings.
Then I could include a canonical tag at /5gs?search=black pointing to /5gs and NOT include a canonical tag at /5gs/123456 because I want the individual listing to rank?
-
Assuming the info is the same content (duplicate) just with a colour etc.
www.example.com/electronics/apple/iphone/5gs/123456
I would put the tag on that page pointing towards:
www.example.com/electronics/apple/iphone/5gs
What the tag is doing is saying the page (123456) is a duplicate of the another page, here is the other page (the link in tag) then Google will put all relevant juice to the original.
The canonical tag is great for duplicate content but it by putting it on a page deeper in the structure it only affects that page not any others. You can sometimes get a bit ahead by trying to canonical pages that don't exists like www.exsample.com?yay
-
Thanks!
I have a follow up question :).
What if there are listings with unique IDs with the following URL structure:
www.example.com/electronics/apple/iphone/5gs/123456
Then, canonicalizing /electronics/apple/iphone/5gs would prevent the listing from ranking.
What is best practice in these cases? Ideally I would like to pass link juice from the ?search filters to the canonical URL but leave the sub-directories as is.
-
Hi there,
Looks like you've gotten to the bottom of it there. The canonical tag is best as you wouldn't loose any link juice but it would get the desired effect of not indexing the filter.
Looks like you've got a handle on it so good luck!
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 url disappeared from Google but Search Console shows indexed. This url has been indexed for more than a year. Please help!
Super weird problem that I can't solve for last 5 hours. One of my urls: https://www.dcacar.com/lax-car-service.html Has been indexed for more than a year and also has an AMP version, few hours ago I realized that it had disappeared from serps. We were ranking on page 1 for several key terms. When I perform a search "site:dcacar.com " the url is no where to be found on all 5 pages. But when I check my Google Console it shows as indexed I requested to index again but nothing changed. All other 50 or so urls are not effected at all, this is the only url that has gone missing can someone solve this mystery for me please. Thanks a lot in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Davit19850 -
Dates on Google Search Results
Hello, I manage htts://globalrose.com When I search on Google for "Yellow Roses", "Yellow Roses Globalrose", or any search that might bring up one of our pages, sometimes our search results appear with dates right before the description. Does anyone know what this mean? Why they appear on some and not other pages? Here is a search result for example: Example Google Search Can someone please help clarify this for us?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | globalrose.com0 -
Google indexing wrong pages
We have a variety of issues at the moment, and need some advice. First off, we have a HUGE indexing issue across our entire website. Website in question: http://www.localsearch.com.au/ Firstly
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | localdirectories
In Google.com.au, if you search for 'plumbers gosford' (https://www.google.com.au/#q=plumbers+gosford), the wrong page appears - in this instance, the page ranking should be http://www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Plumbers I can see this across the board, across multiple locations. Secondly
Recently I've seen Google reporting in 'Crawl Errors' in webmaster tools URLs such as:
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Saunders-Beach,QLD/Electronic-Equipment-Sales-Repairs&Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA This is an invalid URL, and more specifically, those query strings seem to be referrer queries from Google themselves: &Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA Here's the above example indexed in Google: https://www.google.com.au/#q="AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA" Does anyone have any advice on those 2 errors?0 -
Apps content Google indexation ?
I read some months back that Google was indexing the apps content to display it into its SERP. Does anyone got any update on this recently ? I'll be very interesting to know more on it 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JoomGeek0 -
Customer Experience vs Search Result Optimisation
Yes, I know customer experience is king, however, I have a dilema, my site has been live since June 2013 & we get good feedback on site design & easy to follow navigation, however, our rankings arent as good as they could be? For example, the following 2 pages share v similar URLs, but the pages do 2 different jobs & when you get to the site that is easy to see, but my largest Keyword "Over 50 Life Insurance" becomes difficult to target as google sees both pages and splits the results, so I think i must be losing ranking positions? http://www.over50choices.co.uk/Funeral-Planning/Over-50-Life-Insurance.aspx http://www.over50choices.co.uk/Funeral-Planning/Over-50-Life-Insurance/Compare-Over-50s-Life-Insurance.aspx The first page explains the product(s) and the 2nd is the Quote & Compare page, which generates the income. I am currently playing with meta tags, but as yet havent found the right combination! Originally the 2nd page meta tags were focussing on "compare over 50s life insurance" but google still sees "over 50 life insurance" in this phrase, so the results get split. I also had internal anchor text supporting this. What do you think is the best strategy for optimising both pages? Thanks Ash
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AshShep10 -
Noindex
I have been reading a lot of conflicting information on the Link Juice ramifications of using "NoIndex". Can I get some advice for the following situation? 1. I have pages that I do not want indexed on my site. They are lead conversion pages. Just about every page on my site has links to them. If I just apply a standard link, those pages will get a ton of Link Juice that I'd like to allocate to other pages. 2. If I use "nofollow", the pages won't rank, but the link juice evaporates. I get that. I won't use "nofollow" 3. I have read that "noindex, follow" will block the pages in the SERPs, but will pass Link Juice to them. I don't think that I want this either. If I "dead end" the lead form with no navigation or links, will the juice be locked up on the page? 4. I assume that I should block the pages in robots.txt In order to keep the pages out of the SERPs, and conserve Link Juice, what should I do? Can someone please give me a step by step process with the reasoning for what I should do here?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CsmBill0 -
To noindex or not to noindex
Our website lets users test whether any given URL or keyword is censored in China. For each URL and keyword that a user looks up, a page is created, such as https://en.greatfire.org/facebook.com and https://zh.greatfire.org/keyword/freenet. From a search engines perspective, all these pages look very similar. For this reason we have implemented a noindex function based on certain rules. Basically, only highly ranked websites are allowed to be indexed - all other URLs are tagged as noindex (for example https://en.greatfire.org/www.imdb.com). However, we are not sure that this is a good strategy and so are asking - what should a website with a lot of similar content do? Don't noindex anything - let Google decide what's worth indexing and not. Noindex most content, but allow some popular pages to be indexed. This is our current approach. If you recommend this one, we would like to know what we can do to improve it. Noindex all the similar content. In our case, only let overview pages, blog posts etc with unique content to be indexed. Another factor in our case is that our website is multilingual. All pages are available (and equally indexed) in Chinese and English. Should that affect our strategy?References:https://zh.greatfire.orghttps://en.greatfire.orghttps://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agreatfire.org
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GreatFire.org0 -
Removing pages from index
Hello, I run an e-commerce website. I just realized that Google has "pagination" pages in the index which should not be there. In fact, I have no idea how they got there. For example, www.mydomain.com/category-name.asp?page=3434532
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlexGop
There are hundreds of these pages in the index. There are no links to these pages on the website, so I am assuming someone is trying to ruin my rankings by linking to the pages that do not exist. The page content displays category information with no products. I realize that its a flaw in design, and I am working on fixing it (301 none existent pages). Meanwhile, I am not sure if I should request removal of these pages. If so, what is the best way to request bulk removal. Also, should I 301, 404 or 410 these pages? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Alex0