Rel=Canonical vs. No Index
-
Ok, this is a long winded one. We're going to spell out what we've seen, then give a few questions to answer below, so please bear with us!
We have websites with products listed on them and are looking for guidance on whether to use rel=canonical or some version of No Index for our filtered product listing pages. We work with a couple different website providers and have seen both strategies used.
Right now, one of our web providers uses No Index, No Follow tags and Moz alerted us to the high frequency of these tags. We want to make sure our internal linking structure is sound and we are worried that blocking these filtered pages is keeping our product pages from being as relevant as they could be. We've seen recommendations to use No Index, Follow tags instead, but our other web provider uses a different method altogether.
Another vendor uses a rel=canonical strategy which we've also seen when researching Nike and Amazon's sites. Because these are industry leading sites, we're wondering if we should get rid of the No Index tags completely and switch to the canonical strategy for our internal links. On that same provider's sites, we've found rel=canonical tags used after the first page of our product listings, and we've seen recommendations to use rel=prev and rel=next instead.
With all that being said, we have three questions:
1)Which strategy (rel=canonical vs. No Index) do you recommend as being optimal for website crawlers and boosting our site relevance?
2)If we should be using some version of No Index, should we use Follow or No Follow?
2)Depending on the product, we have multiple pages of products for each category. Should we use rel=prev & rel=next instead of rel=canonical among the pages after page one?
Thanks in advance!
-
Oleg, I like your thought process on this.
I am dealing with this exact issue and have 2 brilliant minds arguing over what is best approach. In reviewing the above, I agree with the approach. Canonical links to the first page of "Honda-civic-coupe" makes perfect sense.
Total we use prev-next, but self-refer rel=canonical the URL's on subsequent pages, but are not no-indexing page 2+. The negative impact is that Google will from time to time, add as site-links to the #1 search result a pagination page (e.g., 6 ) and some pagination pages are indexed. Landing page traffic to these is near zero. Our decision is determining whether to non-index or rel-canonical to the first page.
The pages in my case are new home communities where we might be listing all the different communities that are luxury communities in the specific city. While they are all this same category, as a group can be described similarly, and will have near duplicate metas, each community (list element) is unique. So, page #1 can be viewed as quite differentiated.
Here are the arguments:
-
Rel=canonical to the first page. As much as we think each shingle (i.e., page of 15 communities) is unique. The 15 Descriptions, amenities, location, what it is near, things you can do there are unique, As a group it can be considered just a list of communities. By pointing back to page #1 we are saying this is a collecting list of 3 pages of luxury communities in a given city. This will concentrate authority to the page that is most relevant.
-
No-index the subsequent pages. When Google said near duplicate, they really were considering limiting that scope to pages where the items are exactly the same or nearly the same. If the individual page content due to the differentiated product can be seen as unique content simply due to the in-page list elements, they are not really duplicate and rel=canonical is inappropriate. To use rel=canonical would at some point be viewed as manipulative and over-reaching use of rel=canonical. While this may cause this page to rank better, it may be considered not okay at some point.
Option #1 would seem to have a better immediate rank impact, but is there some real risk that it would be considered manipulative since the pages would not look to Google as near enough duplicates?
Glad to hear what you or others have to say.
-
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the input - we'll look into making those updates!
-
Yes, you would canonical to that searchnew.aspx page.
In this scenario, I would set up mod_rewrite to create "Category" page for each specific model so you can rank for more pages.
e.g /model/Honda-Civic-Coupe/ would be a static page and you can canonical all of the other filters to their respective pages.
-
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for the answers and advice - here's an example of a filtered inventory listings page on one of our sites that isn't currently using a rel=canonical on it. Would you just have the canonical point back to the main "searchnew" page? If you have any other insights to improvements to this page's structure, please feel free to send suggestions.
http://www.leithhonda.com/searchnew.aspx?model=Civic+Coupe
Thanks all!
-
I would say using rel canonical would be the best. I am guessing your filter system is using a anchor or a hashbang? We only do ecommerce work and we typically just have the canonical of the filter page pointed to the category that is being filtered. The reason being is that you don't want to reduce the chances of the category ranking in the serps.
But honestly like Oleg said, the site would need to be seen to give a 100% best possible answer. We have used several different strategies with our clients. Some involve actually rewriting the filter urls as landing pages and trying to rank them as well.
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the response. We're actually looking for info on our product listings pages, or search results pages within the site. Would this advice still apply to those pages?
-
Hard to give answer without seeing the site... ideally, you don't use canonicals or noindex and instead have 1 page per product.
-
Canonical is better overall i'd say - as long as the two pages you are merging are (almost) identical
-
keep the follow, doesn't hurt and only boosts pages it links to
-
Again, tough to understand but sounds like you should use canonical (pagination basically "merges" the paginated pages into 1 long one so to speak, so if you have the same content over and over again, best to canonical)
-
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
-
Why only a few pages of my website are being indexed by google
Our website www.navisyachts.com has in its sitemap over 3000 pages of information, and this is all unique content written by our team. Now Google Webmaster central shows only 100 urls indexed from 3500 submitted. Can you help me understand why and how I can fix this issue? The website has 4 years old, is a Joomla 3.3 up to date. It has part of the content in the Joomla core content systems and part in K2. Thank you. Pablo
Reporting & Analytics | | FWC_SEO0 -
Curious, anyone ever had over half of their indexed links drop on an e-commerce site?
In a year went from around 300k indexed pages to around >100k according to GWT. Could this be duplicate content issue, lost links, spam, aged links or all of the above? either way an audit is in order. Thanks! Chris
Reporting & Analytics | | Sundance_Kidd0 -
How to get crawled pages indexed?
Hi, I've got over 1k pages crawled but approx 100 pages indexed. Although, i submit them on Google Fetch and the links are indexable,they are not indexed. What shall i do the get max pages indexed? Any input highly appreciated. Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | Rubix0 -
Google Webmaster Tools - spike in 'not selected' under Index Status
Hi fellow mozzers Has anyone seen a huge shift in the number of pages 'Not Selected' under Index Status in Google WMT, and been able to identify what the problem has been? My new client recently moved their site to wordpress - and in doing so the number of pages 'not selected' rose from ~200 to ~1100, It was high before but is ridiculous now. I am thinking there must be a new duplicate content issue which should be cleaned up in my quest to improve their SEO. Could it be the good old WP tag/category issue? In which case I won't worry as Joost is doing its job of keeping stuff out of the index. There are loads of image pages which could well appear as dupe as have no content on them (i do need to fix this), but Google is already indexing these so doesn't explain the ones 'not selected'. I've tried checking dupe title tags but there are very few of them so that doesn't help Any other ideas of how to identify what these problem pages maybe? Thanks very much! Wendy
Reporting & Analytics | | Chammy0 -
Rel=nofollow link to a NoFollow, NoIndex Page?
I have a multitude of "schedule a demo" pages/forms on my site that are all identical, so I have on all of them. My question is, should I also place on the link to the "schedule a demo" pages? I know the generic rule is to never nofollow any internal links (per Matt Cutts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVOOB_Q0MZY), but should that still apply if the link directs to a page that is noindex, nofollow? Thanks for your input in advance; don't want to run into, as Matt Cutts puts it, "a mini kerfuffle!"
Reporting & Analytics | | BethA0 -
Why do I have few different index URL addresses?
Yes I know, sorry guys but I also have a problem with duplicate pages. It shows that almost every page of my site has a duplicate content issue and looking at my folders in the server, I don't see all these pages... This is a static Website with no shopping cart or anything fancy. The first on the list is my [index] page and this is giving me a hint about some sort of bad settings on my end with the SEOMOZ crawler??? Please advice and thank you! index-variations.jpg
Reporting & Analytics | | cssyes0 -
Indexed URLs in Webmaster Tools
Hi everybody! I've been looking at my Webmaster Tools stats, and it looks like not all the URLs in the sitemap tree have been indexed, according to WMT at least. Is this reliable, and if so, is it worth investigating further? | Sitemap | Status | Type | Downloaded | URLs submitted | URLs in web index |
Reporting & Analytics | | neooptic
| | /ISitemap1.xml | | Sitemap | Dec 15, 2011 | 2,000 | 1,309 |
| | /isitemap.xml | | Index | Dec 15, 2011 | 8,695 | 4,127 |
| | /isitemap2.xml | | Sitemap | Dec 15, 2011 | 2,000 | 998 |
| | /isitemap3.xml | | Sitemap | Dec 15, 2011 | 2,000 | 819 |
| | /isitemap4.xml | | Sitemap | Dec 15, 2011 | 2,000 | 719 |
| | /isitemap5.xml | | Sitemap | Dec 15, 2011 | 695 | 282 | Thanks!0 -
Increased Bounce Rate & Dollar Index?
We use Google Analytics on our ecommerce site and we recently made several changes to an important page. Due to logistical reasons, we couldn't perform a Google web optimizer test but tracked the page's numbers in analytics from before/after the changes were made. After a week, we noticed that the bounce rate on the page went up by about 10% but the dollar index also doubled. We're trying to figure out how this could happen, since it seems kind of odd. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Reporting & Analytics | | airnwater0