302 to a page and rel=canonical back to the original (to preserve url juice)?
-
Bit of a weird case, but let me explain.
We use unbounce.com to create our landing pages, which are on a separate sub-domain (get.domain.com).
Some of these landing pages have a substantial amount of useful information and are part of our content building strategy (our content marketers are able to deploy them without going through the dev team cycle).We'd like to make sure the seo page-juice is counting towards our primary domain and not the subdomain.
(It would also help if we one day stop using unbounce and just migrate our landing page content to our primary website).Would it be an SEO faux-pas to do the following:
domain.com/awesome-page ---[302]---> get.domain.com/awesome-page
get.domain.com/awesome-page ---[rel=canonical]---> domain.com/awesome-pageMy understanding is that our primary domain would hold all the "page juice" whilst sending users to the unbounce landing page - and the day we stop using unbounce, we just kill the redirect and host the content on our primary domain.
-
Hi Dirk,
Thanks for confirming our thoughts - we'll focus on building content for now, benefit where we can with our landing pages on sub-domains, and optimise further once we pull away from hosted solutions for content pages.
-
It is a "faux pas". The problem with the solution you propose is that the canonical url you are pointing to doesn't exist (domain.com/awesome-page has status 302 = temporarily moved to another location). Check http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html - best practices
- A large portion of the duplicate page’s content should be present on the canonical version.
- Double-check that your rel=canonical target exists
With the canonical you indicate that you prefer that domain.com/awesome-page is shown in the search results rather than get.domain.com/awesome-page - Google will however not put pages with 302 status in the search results
Not sure if it's possible - but the best solution would be to maintain both pages & put a canonical on unbounce.If that is not possible - just leave it as it is. The moment you stop working with unbounce you 301 these pages to the corresponding pages on the main domain.
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
-
Schema.org on Product Page showing strange result if you post url in google
Hi All, We have implemented Schema.org for our products and currently if you put the url in google, the results showing up are not the meta description but some of the schema.org content along with some other rubbish at the bottom . Do you know if we are doing this wrong as in GWT it all looks okay and says it fine? You can get the url from here -http://goo.gl/aSFPqP Any assistance, greatly appreciated. thanks peter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Crawl Issue Found: No rel="canonical" Tags
Given that google have stated that duplicate content is not penalised is this really something that will give sufficient benefits for the time involved?Also, reading some of the articles on moz.com they seem very ambivalent about its use – for example http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questionsWill any page with a canonical link normally NOT be indexed by google?Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fdmgroup0 -
Ecommerce Link Juice and Canonical URLs
Hello all. I am optimising an E-Commerce site and I have a questions about Products in several categories & Canonical URL's. Using Magento Platform. site.com/category1/product1/ ( link from category is site.com/product1/ )
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | s_EOgi_Bear
site.com/category2/product1/ ( link from category is site.com/product1/ )
site.com/category2/subcategory1/product1 ( link from category is the same , as is the canonical URL )
site.com/product1/ ( this is where other categories link to ) Canonical links for all the above is site.com/category2/subcategory1/product1 which takes care of duplicate content correctly. I just wonder if we would get more link juice if ALL the links from all categories went to site.com/category2/subcategory1/product1 ( instead of some going to site.com/product1/ ) Thanks in advance 🙂0 -
Better UX or more Dedicated Pages (and page views)?
Hi, I'm building a new e-commerce site and I'm conflicting about what to do in my category pages. If we take for example a computer store.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet
I have a category of laptops and inside there are filters by brand (Samsung, HP, etc.). I have two options - either having the brand choice open a new dedicated page -
i.e. Samsung-Laptops.aspx or simply do a JQuery filter which gives a better and faster user experience (immediate, animated and with no refresh). **Which should I use? (or does it depend on the keyword it might target)? **
Samsung laptops / dell laptops / hp laptops - are a great keyword on there own! By the way, splitting Laptops.aspx to many sub category physical pages might also help by providing the site with many actual pages dealing with laptops altogether.0 -
What does this kind of rel="canonical" mean?
It looks like our CMS may not be configured correctly as there is an empty section in the rel="canonical" rel="canonical" href="{page_uri}" /> Will having the above meta tag be harmful to our SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | voicesdotcom0 -
Canonical VS Rel=Next & Rel=Prev for Paginated Pages
I run an ecommerce site that paginates product pages within Categories/Sub-Categories. Currently, products are not displayed in multiple categories but this will most likely happen as time goes on (in Clearance and Manufacturer Categories). I am unclear as to the proper implementation of Canonical tags and Rel=Next & Rel=Prev tags on paginated pages. I do not have a View All page to use as the Canonical URL so that is not an option. I want to avoid duplicate content issues down the road when products are displayed in multiple categories of the site and have Search Engines index paginated pages. My question is, should I use the Rel=Next & Rel=Prev tags on paginated pages as well as using Page One as the Canonical URL? Also, should I implement the Canonical tag on pages that are not yet paginated (only one page)?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mj7750 -
Does URL format affect Keyword effectiveness for a URL?
I am looking at our site structure, and don't want to have to rebuild the way the site was linked together based on it's current folder structure so I am wondering what option would work better for our URL structure. I will uses car categories as an example of what I am talking about, but you can insert any category structure you like. For example I would like to have pages like this: www.example.com/ford-convertibles
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SL_SEM
www.example.com/chevy-convertibles But instead due to the site structure I will need to have pages like this: www.example.com/ford/convertibles
www.example.com/chevy/convertibles But wonder if I shouldn't do the following to ensure the proper phrase is known for the page: www.example.com/ford/ford-convertibles
www.example.com/chevy/chevy-convertibles The "/ford/ford-convertibles" just seems odd to me as a human, but I haven't seen anything on how well a keyphrase in a URL split by /'s does and I know dashes for phrases are fine. This means I am inclined to go with the"/ford/ford-convertibles"style because it keeps the keyphrase separated by dashes even if it is a bit repetitive. There will be other pages too like "/ford/top-10-fords-ever" but I don't wonder about that since it isnt "ford/ford-xxxxx" Thoughts on whether /'s in a keyphrase are as good as dashes?0 -
Duplicate content - canonical vs link to original and Flash duplication
Here's the situation for the website in question: The company produces printed publications which go online as a page turning Flash version, and as a separate HTML version. To complicate matters, some of the articles from the publications get added to a separate news section of the website. We want to promote the news section of the site over the publications section. If we were to forget the Flash version completely, would you: a) add a canonical in the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? b) add a link in the footer of the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? c) both of the above? d) something else? What if we add the Flash version into the mix? As Flash still isn't as crawlable as HTML should we noindex them? Is HTML content duplicated in Flash as big an issue as HTML to HTML duplication?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0