Canonical URL availability
-
Hi
We have a website selling cellphones. They are available in different colors and with various data capacity, which slightly changes the URL.
For instance:
- Black iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html
- White iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,16,000000000010204783).html
- White iphone, 24GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,24,000000000010204783).html
Now, the canonical URL indicates a standard URL:
But this URL is never physically available. Instead, a user gets 301 redirected to one of the above URLs. Is this a problem? Does a URL have to be "physically" available if it is indicated as canonical?
-
Thanks Dirk for your great in-depth response!
I will now check with developers what the estimated effort would be. Making the canonical URL available will let me sleep better at night before releasing the new site version.
I think the risk shouldn't be huge if we cannot do this and will not waste too many ressources on this (unless, of course, we see a negative impact, which I will then report here;)Best,
Phil -
With a 301 you communicate that the requested resource is no longer available (The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs- source: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html)
If you look at the definition of a canonical url - it indicates the preferred URL to use, so that the search results will be more likely to show users that URL structure. (Google attempts to respect this, but cannot guarantee this in all cases.)
So basically what you are telling to Google:
On your site you ask Google not to index site.com/A.htm - but rather to index url site.com/B.htm
On the url site.com/B.htm you put a 301 to site.com/C.htm - in other words force Google to index C.htm rather than B.htm (the 301 indicates that the page has permanently moved to a new location - so is no longer available on B.htm)So in fact - you ask Google not to index A.htm but C.htm instead. Rather than doing this in a complicated 2step process using both canonical & redirect it would be simpler & make more sense to directly put a canonical url on A.htm with C.htm as canonical.
In your case you could create www.site.com/iphone but if it's identical to www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html I don't think you will gain a lot (especially if it requires a lot of development)
rgds,
Dirk
-
Thank you Dirk!
I did look at the article you pointed out, but could not initially find that information:
"Double-check that your rel=canonical target exists (it’s not an error or “soft 404”)"However, for me this is not 100% conclusive. The page does exist, in a way, but it's redirected. I know that to be on the safe side, we should better make it available. But as it would mean a lot of additional programming effort, I am trying to find out if it really is necessary. Thats' why I was hoping someone already has some experience with this...
-
Normally a canonical url should be physically available - see also: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
With a canonical you indicate the Search engines which page you want to have listed in the SERP's. A page which is 301'd to another page will never get listed in the results.
In your case - it's probably better to use the url where your are redirecting to as canonical - or to create a page www.site.com/iphone that is not redirected
rgds,
Dirk
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
-
Google Only Indexing Canonical Root URL Instead of Specified URL Parameters
We just launched a website about 1 month ago and noticed that Google was indexing, but not displaying, URLs with "?location=" parameters such as: http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/?location=great-falls-virginia and http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/?location=mclean-virginia. Instead, Google has only been displaying our root URL http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/ in its search results -- which we don't want as the URLs with specific locations are more important and each has its own unique list of houses for sale. We have Yoast setup with all of these ?location values added in our sitemap that has successfully been submitted to Google's Sitemaps: http://www.castlemap.com/buy-location-sitemap.xml I also tried going into the old Google Search Console and setting the "location" URL Parameter to Crawl Every URL with the Specifies Effect enabled... and I even see the two URLs I mentioned above in Google's list of Parameter Samples... but the pages are still not being added to Google. Even after Requesting Indexing again after making all of these changes a few days ago, these URLs are still displaying as Allowing Indexing, but Not On Google in the Search Console and not showing up on Google when I manually search for the entire URL. Why are these pages not showing up on Google and how can we get them to display? Only solution I can think of would be to set our main /local-house-values/ page to noindex in order to have Google favor all of our other URL parameter versions... but I'm guessing that's probably not a good solution for multiple reasons.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nitruc0 -
URL structure for new product launch
Hello, I work for a company (let's call it companyX) that is about to launch a new product, lets call it ProductY. www.CompanyX.com is an old domain with a good domain authority. The market in which ProductY is being launched is extremely competitive. The marketing department want's to launch ProductY on a new website at www.ProductY.com.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lvet
My opinion is that we should instead create a subfolder with product information at www.CompanyX.com/ProductY. By doing this we could leverage on the existing domain authority of CompanyX.com Additionally for campaigns, and in order to have a more memorable URL we could use ProductY.com with a 301 redirect to www.CompanyX.com/ProductY What do you think is the best strategy from an SEO point of view? Cheers
Luca0 -
Migrating From Parameter-Driven URL's to 'SEO Friendly URL's (Slugs)
Hi all, hope you're all good and having a wonderful Friday morning. At the moment we have over 20,000+ live products on our ecomms site, however, all of the products are using non-seo friendly URL's (/product?p=1738 etc) and we're looking at deploying SEO friendly url's such as (/product/this-is-product-one) etc. As you could imagine, making such a change on a big ecomms site will be a difficult task and we will have to take on A LOT of content changes, href-lang changes, affiliate link tests and a big 301 task. I'm trying to get some analysis together to pitch the Tech guys, but it's difficult, I do understand that this change has it's benefits for SEO, usability and CTR - but I need some more info. Keywords in the slugs - what is it's actual SEO weight? Has anyone here recently converted from using parameter based URL's to keyword-based slugs and seen results? Also, what are the best ways of deploying this? Add a canonical and 301? All comments greatly appreciated! Brett
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Brett-S0 -
Canonicals question ref canonicals pointing to redundant urls
Hi, SCENARIO: A site has say 3 examples of the same product page but with different urls because that product fits into 3 different categories e.g. /tools/hammer /handtools/hammer /specialoffers/hammer and lets say the first 2 of those have the canonical pointing to /specialoffers/hammer YET that page is now redundant e.g. the webmaster decided to do away with the /specialoffers/ folder. ASSUMPTIONS: That is going to seriously hamper the chances of the 2 remaining versions of the hammer page being able to rank as they have canonicals pointing to a url that no longer exists. The canonical tags should be changed to point to 1 of the remaining url versions. As an added complication - lets say /specialoffers/hammer still exists, the url works, but just isn't navigable from the site. Thoughts/feedback welcome!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
Canonical code set up correctly?
Please let me know if this makes sense. I have a very limited knowledge of technical SEO but I am almost positive that my web developer did something wrong. I have a wordpress blog and he did add canonical code to some of the pages. However he directs the site to the same URL! Does this mean that the canonical code is setup incorrectly and actually harming my SEO performance. Also if I have one webpage with just the first paragraph of a blog post I wrote and a completely seperate page for the blog post itself, could this be considered duplicate content? Thanks!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DR700950 -
International URL Puzzle
Hello, I have 4 different URL's going to 4 different countries that all contain the same content and Google is seeing them as duplicate pages. For ecommerce reasons I have to have these 4 pages separated. Here is a example of the pages below so you can see the URL structure: www.example/com/canada www.example.com/australia www.example.com/usa www.example.com/UK How do I fix this duplicate content problem? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | digitalops0 -
URL or Domain length
Hi All, I am wondering if google still does give importance to the length of the domain or url. If yes then how much is the acceptable length of a domain and URL. Many Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HiteshBharucha0 -
URL blocked
Hi there, I have recently noticed that we have a link from an authoritative website, however when I looked at the code, it looked like this: <a <span="">href</a><a <span="">="http://www.mydomain.com/" title="blocked::http://www.mydomain.com/">keyword</a> You will notice that in the code there is 'blocked::' What is this? has it the same effect as a nofollow tag? Thanks for any help
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780