How to choose the best canonical URL
-
In a duplicate content situation, and assuming that both rel=canonical and a 301 redirect pass link equity (I know there is still some speculation on this), how should you choose the "best" version of the URL to establish as the redirect target or authoritative URL?
For example, we have a series of duplicate pages on our site. Typically we choose the "cleanest" or shortest non-trailing-slash version of the URL as the canonical, but what if those pages are already established and have varying page authority/backlink profiles? The URLs are:
example.com/stores/locate/index?parameters=tags - PA = 54, Inbound Links = 259
example.com/stores/locate/index - PA = 60, Inbound Links = 302
example.com/stores/ - This is the version that currently ranks. PA = 42, Inbound Links = 3
example.com/stores - PA = 40, Inbound Links = 8
This might not really even matter, but in the interests of conserving as much SEO value as possible, which would you choose as either the 301 redirect target and/or the canonical version? My gut is to go with the URL that's already ranking (example.com/stores/) but curious if PA, backlinks, and trailing slashes should be considered also.
We of course would not 301 the URL with the tracking parameters.
Thanks for your help!
-
I like to keep the canonical neat so it looks better in the serps so as to encourage future users to click on it (people like clean, readable URLs), so I try not to use unnecessarily complex URLs. I have had very good luck in canonicalizing messy URLs with decent authority to new, completely non-ranking but clean, URLs and not only keeping but growing page authority.
And I have a fairly large site which is crawled regularly so I do value consistency--whichever page is set as the canonical will eventually become the ranking page, so current rank is not the biggest issue to me. In the long run, consistency will make your life (and the life of anyone who follows you in your present position) easier. (That being said, it wouldn't hurt anything if you prefer to use what is currently ranking.)
-
Thanks Linda! With regards to the trailing slash, typically we do set the non-trailing slash version as the canonical version across our site. So in this case, would you recommend that we stick with the non-trailing slash version for consistency's sake, even if it seems like it has lower SEO value?
Or would you go with the trailing slash version since it's the one currently ranking, and seems to have the more value; or even the longer URL with the highest PA/backlinks?
Thanks again!
-
In general, you will get the most links to a page via whatever URL is easiest for the linker to grab, so often it is not the prettiest, with parameters and such. But you really don't want that showing up in the serps, so don't use that as a canonical.
As far as the trailing slash/no slash issue, most people will use the no slash version if they are choosing how to add a link, even when the slash version would be more correct (as in your example) so you would also expect to see more links there.
But you mention that the slash version is the ranking version in your example. Is this mostly true throughout the site? (Maybe it is a Wordpress site that ends everything with slashes?) Then I'd stick with that. (I myself use the rule you first mentioned, the cleanest, non-slash version, but my site doesn't use trailing forward slashes.)
Do keep it consistent though. It would be a pain to always be checking pages to see what the canonical should be. The amount of SEO value you might lose is minimal.
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
-
WWW used in research URL, or not to WWW
Long time user, infrequent poster.... thanks for taking my question... When I go to gather a series of data elements on a company's URL, the data changes (sometime dramatically) depending on whether the 'www.' is added to the URL & it seems related more to Page data than Domain. My question is about which data I should be using to assess the real strength of the site / page? Is there a 'best practice' question here, a personal preference or is there an actual difference in the performance of the www vs the non-www version? aquGYdz
Moz Pro | | SWGroves0 -
What is the best way to add a noindex./nofollow meta tags to tags in a blog?
Could anyone tell me the best way to add noindex./nofollow meta tags as I have around 12 duplicate tags in a blog. I have the Yoast SEO plugin - unpaid version.
Moz Pro | | SEM_at_Lees0 -
My index URL was removed from Google, but all others remain in the search engines
HI All, My site was ranking very well and was in 1st page of google for most of my keywords. Couple of weeks back we did some update to the site and moved it to new hosting and from then onwards I dont see my site home page in Google ranking . My Website Name is : royalevents.com.au. It used to be in 1st of Google for keywords like wedding Mandaps, Indian Wedding Mandaps etc, Would be great if some one helps us to figure out whats gone wrong .. I also did Webmaster Fetch as Google but nothing happened. Thanks
Moz Pro | | Verve-Innovation0 -
Magento: Moz finding URL and URL?p=1 as duplicate. Solution?
Good day Mozzers! Moz bot is finding URL's in the Catalogue pages with the format www.example.com/something and www.example.com/something?p=1 as duplicate (since they are the same page) Whats the best solution to implement here? Canonical? Any other? Cheers! MozAddict
Moz Pro | | MozAddict0 -
How to fix overly dynamic URLs for Volusion site?
We're currently getting over 5439 pages with an 'overly dynamic URL' warning in our Moz scan. The site is run on Volusion. Is there a way to fix this seeming Volusion error?
Moz Pro | | Brandon_Clay0 -
Rel Canonical
hi folks sorry i really am confused and not very good with technical terms i have 553 Rel Canonical notices but i cant understand what Rel Canonical actually means it kinda sounds like there links that go nowhere to help the seo ranking? am i right or just in way over my head? please use the most basic language you can 🙂 cheers donal
Moz Pro | | homebrew10 -
Blog Page URLs Showing Duplicate Content
On the SEOMoz Crawl Diagnostics, we are receiving information that we have duplicate page content for the URL Blog pages. For Example: blog/page/33/ blog/page/34/ blog/page/35/ blog/page/36/ These are older post in our blog. Moz is saying that these are duplicate content. What is the best way to fix the URL structure of the pages?
Moz Pro | | _Thriveworks0 -
Can someone explain why I have been seeing an increase in the number of Linking Page URLs in OSE that link directly to downloads?
Ever since the last couple Linkscape updates when doing competitive back link analysis I have noticed a large increase in the number of URLs of Linking Pages in OSE that result in an immediate file download. The majority of the time these downloads are not common files ie PDF, DOC files. For example, these were all in a competitors back link profile: http://download.unesp.br/linux/debian/pool/main/i/isc-dhcp/isc-dhcp-relay-dbg_4.1.1-P1-17_ia64.deb http://snow.fmi.fi/data/20090210_eurasia_sd_025grid.mat http://www.rose-hulman.edu/class/me/HTML/ES204_0708_S/working model examples/Le25 mad hatter.wm?a=p&id=145880&g=5&p=sia&date=iso&o=ajgrep These are just a few I came across for a single competitor. Is this sketchy black hat SEO, some sort of error, actual links, or something else? Any information on this subject would be helpful. Thank you.
Moz Pro | | Gyi0