Should you 301, 302, or rel=canonical private pages?
-
What should you do with private 'logged in' pages from a seo perspective? They're not visible to crawlers and shouldn't be indexed, so what is best practice? Believe it or not, we have found quite a few back links to private pages and want to get the ranking benefit from them without them being indexed.
Eg: http://twiends.com/settings (Only logged in user can see the page)
302 them: We can redirect users/crawlers temporarily, but I believe this is not ideal from a seo perspective? Do we lose the link juice to this page?
301 them: We can do a permanent redirect with a short cache time. We preserve most link juice now, but we probably mess up the users browser. Users trying to reach a private page while logged out may have issues reaching it after logged in.
**Serve another page with rel=canonical tag: **We could serve back the home page without changing the URL. We use a canonical tag to tell the crawlers that it's a duplicate of the home page. We keep most of the link juice, and the browser is unaffected. Yes, a user might share that different URL now, but its unlikely.
We've been doing 302's up until now, now we're testing the third option. How do others solve this problem? Is there a problem with it?
Any advice appreciated.
-
You should 302 redirect non-authenticated users to http://twiends.com/login.
This is a better user experience, and you avoid the potential authentication issues with the 301. It's also not really correct or useful to make it a 301 redirect: users aren't being 'permanently' redirected to the login page, and there's not much utility in forcing link juice to be passed from /settings to /login either.
So requests to /settings should either show that user's settings or 302 redirect to /login. Don't duplicate the home page content and rely on a canonical tag. Your domain (and domain authority) are still going to benefit, and I just don't think there's enough of a case to sculpt the flow of link juice in this way. As Andreas has pointed out, the link juice isn't the most important consideration here; it's better to focus on user experience. Your homepage's ability to rank for any given term is unlikely to be affected by the decision to 'rel=canonical' all private pages to the home page.
-
He said I should use the canonical as what it's made for - he said I shouldn't use it as a redirect - I asked if I should/could use a canonical as redirect and he said: it could happen that google starts to think about it: is it a canonical? should it be a 301? Something like that, and he said I should use redirect Was a german Hangout in September/October.
He didn't say anything about link juice - I just thought it should be that way.
-
Hi Andreas, are you sure..? According to this article on Moz:
https://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization
"The rel=canonical tag passes the same amount of link juice (ranking power) as a 301 redirect"
Did John Mueller say that the tag does not pass link juice? Do you have a link to the hangout recording so that I can check it out..?
Thanks
-
A canonical is (guess it was John Mueller who said it) not give you any linkjuice.
He told me in a Webmaster Hangout to use Canonical only for that what it is made for (not for redirects in that hangout-case). Your idea isn't the perfect canonical example.I would simply redirect everybody (who is not logged in) to a login/sign page. That would be the best thing for the users (UX). You send them to the homepage, wich is not perfect for ux. I would ignore the linkjuice in that case.
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
-
Can lost pages be redirected with a 301 in order to do not lost keyword rankings?
Hi, I have got a website and some posts rank well, but I am not so interested in keep them for branding reasons. So I planned to do 301 redirects to home and remove those contents. Is it ok? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | patrizia_h0 -
Wrong Page is Ranking
My client is an Ecommerce reseller of a few major scooter brands. We currently rank fifth for a particular brand name but our main brand page isn't the one that ranks. Instead, it's a product page. The main brand page has an A rating from Moz for the desired keyword phrases. Neither page has any backlinks. Any ideas on why our main brand page would be outranked by a product page? What could we do to change this?
On-Page Optimization | | TrinShin0 -
"Issue: Duplicate Page Content " in Crawl Diagnostics - but these pages are noindex
Saw an issue back in 2011 about this and I'm experiencing the same issue. http://moz.com/community/q/issue-duplicate-page-content-in-crawl-diagnostics-but-these-pages-are-noindex We have pages that are meta-tagged as no-everything for bots but are being reported as duplicate. Any suggestions on how to exclude them from the Moz bot?
On-Page Optimization | | Deb_VHB0 -
Canonical tag?
I have an e-commerce website and the query strings of the URL's are causing duplicate content/titles. I'm thinking of adding a site-wide canonical tag which should fix them all. Any other ideas of making it neater or better?
On-Page Optimization | | KarlBantleman0 -
On Page Optimization Reports
How is it determined which terms and associated urls are chosen when SEOmoz tracks your On-Page Report Card? I'm receiving a lot of F Grades for terms I'm not really interested in and a lot of terms I'd like to be tracked aren't. Is there a way I can manually choose which terms and pages I'd like to be shown?
On-Page Optimization | | ClaytonKendall0 -
Page Rank
I had just made a 301 re-direct on one of our product pages which had a PR of 4, now that Google has indexed the new page, it's now got a PR of 0, i'm struggling to understand why this could be, i know that you may see a drop of 1, which has happened in the past, but this drop just does not make sense. Any ideas of why this could be? Kind Regards
On-Page Optimization | | Paul780 -
Too many on page links
I'm having trouble interpreting this data. It says several of my blog pages have too many on page links, some as high as 140 and there is no example of a blog post that they are referring to. What am I missing? I never post more than a handful (5-7) in our 600-1000wd blogs. When I drill down, it doesn't give me very much information except "Found over 41 years ago" off to the right. When I click on the "too many on page links" URL, it provides a long list of website pages that are renamed with the blog name. huh? A lot of this stuff isn't very intuitive, SEOMoz.
On-Page Optimization | | amandahx20 -
Too Many On-Page Links
I recently took on a website design client and ran his website through a battery of tests using Pro to take a look at the crawl errors. One that seems to stump me is the error "Too many On-Page links" concerning his blog. (http://franksdesigns.com/wp/blog) This is the first time I've seen this error and am rather confused. The report says there are 104 links on this page. However, I'm having trouble grasping this concept or finding the 104 links. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!
On-Page Optimization | | WebLadder0