Vanity URLs Canonicalization
-
Hi,
So right now my vanity URLs have a lot more links than my regular homepage. They 301 redirect to the homepage but I'm thinking of canonicalizing the homepage, as well as the mobile page, to the vanity URL. Currently some of my sites have a vanity URL in a SERP and some do not. This is my way of nudging google to list them all as vanity but thought I would get everyone's opinion first.
Thanks!
-
Yeah, they don't explicitly mention 301s. But similar to a 404, a 301ed page is technically also not an "existent URL with good content." It's a permanent move, i.e., that particular URL no longer exists, though the content does exist at a new URL.
Dr. Pete wrote a good post about rel=canonicals a couple years ago that's worth checking out—numbers 3, 7, 9, and 10 in particular.
As far as the lack of consistency in the results, if you're treating all the URLs the same way, it might simply be a time lag. I could see how using 302s for a long period of time would end up showing the vanity URLs in the index. The only way I think you could consistently get a particular URL to display for a result would be to establish it as the official, "canonical" version of the page, whether you do that with 301s or rel=canonical.
-
Also, I read that blog post before but it refers to a 404 not a redirected page. So it doesn't OUTRIGHT say not to do a canonical to a redirected page. It is definitely a loop though and I see the problem in that. I just really wanted an answer to the 301'd page question but I agree that it's not the best idea to do it.
-
Ah ok that's evidence enough not to do it. Ever want to do something and you know it's wrong but you don't know WHY it's wrong and it's hard to find evidence to show it is? That's where I was at. I wanted to set the homepage canonical to the vanity but I knew it treated it like a 301 redirect. My only impulse to do it was that the vanity URLs were appearing in search. Ok so I won't do that.
The only other question is since Google is putting some of the vanity URLs in search and some of the homepage urls in search, is there any way to keep it consistent? It seems like there isn't since Google is disregarding the canonical (which is all to the current homepage and not the vanity) sometimes in replace of the vanity.
-
Okay... well that sounds like a mess.
Your example makes me think of this company powerequipmentdirect.com actually. They have sub-sites across a ton of different domains like mowersdirect.com, chippersdirect.com, etc., and they seem to do well in all of their verticals. So they took a completely different approach to that problem and appear to have had some success with it.
The wording of this has me a little confused though: "I'm hesitant on putting a canonical on a site that is a vanity though and 301 redirecting"
It sounds like you want to put a canonical on "blenders.companyname.com/index.jsp?c_id=ble" that points to blenders.com, but then you would 301 blenders.com back to blenders.companyname.com/index.jsp?c_id=ble. Sorry if I misunderstood you there, but is that right?
Canonicals are generally treated like 301s. So I think that would almost be like a cross-domain loop, which would probably lead G to disregard the canonical altogether. Canonicals aren't a mandatory order. If Google thinks you screwed it up they just ignore it.
In this post on the Google Webmaster Central blog they mention it's necessary "rel=canonical points to an existent URL with good content."
-
The answer is that it's an old jsp site. So it's a long domain that's not good. So say this, say my company does appliances (they don't but let's pretend) and they own refrigerators.com and dryers.com and blenders.com. They have a bad domain structure and have been doing dryers.companyname.com/index.jsp?c_id=dry for years. This, of course, isn't as easy to link to. Also, to make things worse, they have 302'd dryers.com. So, after changing the response codes from 302 to 301, some of the SERPs started to include the vanity URL (i.e. dryers.com) but didn't include others (i.e. say blenders.com is still blenders.companyname.com/index.jsp?c_id=ble). I'd like them to have all the same SERP listing and it's ideal for them to be the vanity (wouldn't you rather dryers.com vs that long ugly URL). Also I know this is not the long term fix (someday it'll all be company.com/dryers but that day is not today).
So my question really is: I'm hesitant on putting a canonical on a site that is a vanity though and 301 redirecting but I have no evidence to back this up. Can you help me find the answer with evidence for this?
-
That sounds like a bad idea to me—almost like you're approaching this inside out. The old Wil Reynolds' concept "real company shit" is a guiding principle here.
"It’s our attempt to take an industry we love and encourage all of us to do the same things REAL COMPANIES DO! Real companies rarely build their business on shortcuts and tricks, yet we as SEO’s were winning so often with shortcuts and tricks." http://www.seerinteractive.com/blog/rcs-how-we-do-it-with-a-live-example/
I think, rather than trying to make the most of the link equity that's hitting your vanity URLs, I would question why your home page, i.e., your company/brand is not as good at attracting links as your vanity URLs are.
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
-
Doing URL change losses SEO ranking or not?
Hi Webmasters, I would like to move shipwaves.me to shipwaves.aeHowever, our website is concentrated on middle east countries and moreover, we have though .me is middle east [United Arab Emirates} and later with SEO advice, we have taken .ae.Besides, our confusion is if the website move from Shipwaves.me to the new domain shipwaves.ae this makes our SEO ranking loss or not?some of our keywords has been started showing on various search pages. So, anyone knows about this concern, please let me know.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | LayaPaul0 -
Restructuring URLS - unsure if this falls on the spammy side of paths.
Hi all, I'm restructuring a site that has been built with no real structure. It's moving over to HTTPS and having a full new development so it's a good time to tackle it all together. It's a snowboard site and at the moment the courses, camps ect are all just as pages like: examplesnowboarding.com/off-piste-backcountry/ I'm wanting to tighten the structure so it gives more meaning to the pages and so I can style them selectively and make it easier for the client to manage but I'm worried repeating the word snowboard too often will look spammy. I'm wanting to do the following: URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-courses/splitboard-backcountry-intro/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | snowflake74
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-camps/technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-camps/girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-lessons/private/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-lessons/group/ The urls are clean and humanly descriptive but it does mean that the "snowboard" keyword is used a lot! The other 2 options I thought of were like so (including snowboard in the page name not path) URL - examplesnowboarding.com/courses/snowboard-splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/snowboard-technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/snowboard-girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/private-snowboard/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/group-snowboard/ or simply removing "snowboard" as "snowboarding" is already in the main url URL - examplesnowboarding.com/courses/splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/private/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/group/ Any thoughts appreciated!1 -
Url suddenlly diappeared from Google search results
Hi, I am facing a big problem wheel Google stop showing a basic url of my site, It was ranked good for more than 35 keywords from 1st to 8st positions, and suddenly I can find it indexed in Google , this is the URL : http://tv1.alarab.com/view-8/مسلسلات-عربية Thnaks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | alarab.net0 -
Canonicalize vs Link Juice
I recently wrote (but have not published) a very comprehensive original article for my new website (which has pretty much no domain authority). I've been talking to the publisher of a very high Domain Authority site and they are interested in publishing it. The article will include 2-3 follow backlinks to my website. My question is should I: Repost the article in my own site and then request a "rel=canonical" from the high authority site Not re-post the article on my own site and just collect the link juice from the high authority site Which would be better for my overall SEO? Assume in case 1) that the high authority site would add a rel=canonical if I asked for it.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | wlingke20 -
How to resolve - Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs
Hi, We got this message from Google Webmaster “Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site”. The sample URLs provided by Google are all either noindex or have a canonical. http://www.myntra.com/nike-stylish-show-caps-sweaters http://www.myntra.com/backpacks/f-gear/f-gear-unisex-black-&-purple-calvin-backpack/162453/buy?src=tn&nav_id=541 http://www.myntra.com/kurtas/alma/alma-women-blue-floral-printed-kurta/85178/buy?nav_id=625 Also we have specified the parameters on these URLs as representative URL in Google Webmaster - URL parameters. Your comments on how to resolve this issue will be appreciated. Thank You Kaushal Thakkar
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Myntra0 -
301 redirect a set of pages to one landing page/URL?
I'm planning to redirect the following pages to one new URL/landing page: Old URLs: http://www.olddomain.com/folder/page/1 http://www.olddomain.com/folder/page/2 http://www.olddomain.com/folder/page/3 http://www.olddomain.com/folder/page/4 http://www.olddomain.com/folder/page/5 http://www.olddomain.com/folder/page/6 New URL: http://www.newdomain.com/new-folder/new-page Code in .htaccess that I will be using: RedirectMatch 301 /folder/page/(.*) http://www.newdomain.com/new-folder/new-page Let me know if this is correct. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | esiow20130 -
Starting fresh on a new url after serious Penguin update down rank
Hi friends My site www.acupunctureclinicvictoriabc.com was recently hit by the penguin update and i dropped to page 5 of local searchs for my key words. A while back I had some bad link building done and now paying for it:( I thought the disavow tool (used 4 months ago) would deal with this issue but apparently not The current url is feeling like a lost cause. My question is if I start fresh on a new url, can I use my old content (or even clone the site and move it to a new url) without being punished for duplicate content on the new site? Any recommendations for starting fresh? I really appreciate any thoughts on this matter, as I am feeling a bit lost and bummed about this issue thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Silasrose0 -
Google Sitemaps & punishment for bad URLS?
Hoping y'all have some input here. This is along story, but I'll boil it down: Site X bought the url of Site Y. 301 redirects were added to direct traffic (and help transfer linkjuice) from urls in Site X to relevant urls in Site Y, but 2 days before a "change of address" notice was submitted in Google Webmaster Tools, an auto-generating sitemap somehow applied urls from Site Y to the sitemap of Site X, so essentially the sitemap contained urls that were not the url of Site X. Is there any documentation out there that Google would punish Site X for having essentially unrelated urls in its sitemap by downgrading organic search rankings because it may view that mistake as black hat (or otherwise evil) tactics? I suspect this because the site continues to rank well organically in Yahoo & Bing, yet is nonexistent on Google suddenly. Thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RUNNERagency0