Canconical tag on site with multiple URL links but only one set of pages
-
We have a site www.mezfloor.com which has a number of Url's pointing at one site. As the url's have been in use for many years there are links from many sources include good old fashioned hard copy advertising. We have now decided that it would be better to try to start porting all sources to the .co.uk version and get that listing as the prime/master site.
A couple of days ago I went through and used canonical tags on all the pages thinking that would set the priority and that would also strengthen the page in terms of trust due to the reduced duplication. However when I went to scan the site in MOZ the warning that the page redirects came up and I am beginning to think that I need to remove all these canonical tags so that search engines do not get into a confused spiral where we loose the little page rank we have.
Is there a way that I can redirect everything except the target URL without setting up a separate master site just for all the other pages to point at.
-
Yes, it is good when there is a clear Google guideline to follow. I'm happy for your quick win!
-
Thanks
I am pleased I do not have to go through the whole site again and even more pleased as I have a number of other sites to work on.These could certainly do with a bit of a boost and this is a quick win.
-
So you want to put a canonical of www.b.co.uk/index.html on a page that can be reached via www.b.co.uk/index.html and you are worried that it will become a loop?
Don't worry. Google specifically thought about the possibility that people might use self-referential canonicals (SEO plugins do it all the time) and engineered it so that this does not cause a loop. (See Matt Cutts on the topic.)
I myself inherited some ugly urls for which I made nice user-friendly aliases and I tagged those pages with the friendly canonical. There were no problems and the pages started doing much better. (In my case it was not cross-domain, but cross-domain canonicals are supposedly supported and in fact I have succesfully used them in other situations.)
-
Hi thanks for the response
The issue is we have one set of pages on a server which is addressed through several different url's.
I never got involved in the server side of things so I do not know if that was by redirects at the route URL. Just maybe I am trying to add canonical links that just are not required.
If I have www.a.co.uk/index.html, www.a.com/index.html, www.b.co.uk/index.html and want them all to point to www.b.co.uk/index.html. As index.html is on the server once then my thought was that I should have a canonical link to that page from within that page with the www.b.co.uk/index.html as the route. This may be right or wrong but there is the risk that a spider stops when it gets to the link and goes to the start of the same page, again and again in a loop.
You are of course right that the Google bot should be OK with this but the Moz bot stopped in its tracks and asked if I wanted the page indexed so I had to do this manually.
Gut feel says I should remove the links for now but need to understand what we did server side. Gut feel maybe wrong and I would prefer to do the right thing!
-
Okay you lost me a little but let me see If I can help.
First off the canonical tag - Its fantastic for duplicate content (even across other sites) now so good if you don't have duplicate content.
301's - It's very similar to above can work well with duplicate content but not essential. Now you can 301 a few pages into one page so if a user types a URL in (or even has it as a bookmark etc.) the will land on the page you want. its normally a good idea to 301 into similar pages to you don't get users thinking they are going to buy (e.g.) a pair of boots and land on a page about t-shirts.
Google getting lost - Don't worry about Google getting lost, if a user can get around so can Google, plan plan and plan again if you plan it all out (you can even draw flow diagrams) so you know where its all going to and from until you are happy. You can also get someone who doesn't know your site to test it see if they get lost.
Hope that background helps a bit, you lost me here-
"Is there a way that I can redirect everything except the target URL without setting up a separate master site just for all the other pages to point at."
Why can't you redirect all your pages to the target URL ?
One helpful tool I recommend is screaming frog it can help you pick up redirects 404 etc.
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
-
Wrong titles for site links of my website.
Hello, everyone. As you can see from the images attached, the site link of the About page has a Weird title " About About about". I have add proper meta description, but it still appears like this. This problem is killing me. What else i can do to solve this problem? Thanks Jason UJcRov1
Technical SEO | | jasonyeyeye0 -
Use of multiple keywords that are similar for one local site
Hi I thought that if I wanted to rank a local site for the core Keyword, 'Landscaping Location' that variations of this keyword should be used on the same page. But I recently read that if I wanted to rank for: Landscaping Location
Technical SEO | | CamperConnect14
Landscaping in Location
Landscaping Services in Location that I should use separate page for each term. Is this correct? A small local website will probably only have a few pages and so making up pages solely to go after Keywords can't be right. But then would opportunities be missed? Thanks for your help with this!!0 -
Big page of clients - links to individual client pages with light content - not sure if canonical or no-follow - HELP
Not sure what best practice here is: http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ Is this is a situation where I'm best off adding canonical tags back to the main clients page, or to the practice area each client falls under? No-following all these links and adding canonical? No-follow/No-index all client pages? need some advice here...
Technical SEO | | simplycary0 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
URL Changes And Site Map Redirects
We are working on a site redesign which will change/shorten our url structure. The primary domain will remain the same however most of the other urls on the site are getting much simpler. My question is how should this be best handled when it comes to sitemaps because there are massive amounts of URLS that will be redirected to the new shorter URL how should we best handle our sitemaps? Should a new sitemap be submitted right at launch? and the old sitemap removed later. I know that Google does not like having redirects in sitemaps. Has anyone done this on a large scale, 60k URLs or more and have any advice?
Technical SEO | | RMATVMC0 -
Use of Multiple Tags
Hi, I have been monitoring some of the authority sites and I noticed something with one of them. This high authority site suddenly started using multiple tags for each post. And I mean, loads of tags, not just three of four. I see that each post comes with at least 10-20 tags. And these tags don't always make sense either. Let's say there is a video for "Bourne Legacy", they list tags like bourne, bourney legacy, bourne series, bourne videos, videos, crime movies, movies, crime etc. They don't even seem to care about duplicate content issues. Let's say the movie is named The Dragon, they would inclue dragon and the-dragon in tags list and despite those two category pages(/dragon and /the-dragon) being exactly the same now, they still wouldn't mind listing both the tags underneath the article. And no they don't use canonical tag. (there isn't even a canonical meta on any page of that site) So I am curious. Do they just know they have a very high DA, they don't need to worry about duplicate content issues? or; I am missing something here? Maybe the extra tags are doing more good than harm?
Technical SEO | | Gamer070 -
Any way to modify SERP site extension links?
I am not sure if this is doable but one of my clients have their website's SERP with sitelinks extension. In example. www.example.com -example1 -example2 -example3 -example 4 Anyway to modify the sitelinks on the SERP?
Technical SEO | | William.Lau0 -
Should there be a canonical tag on my 404 error page?
In my crawl diagnostics, I notice some 4xx client errors. They are appearing for pages that no longer exist, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Shouldn't they just be dealt as 404's? Anyway, on closer inspection I noticed that my 404 error page contains a canonical tag which points to the missing page. Could this be the issue? Is it a good idea to remove the canonical tag from this error page? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Leighm0