301 to canonical
-
I'm doing some work on a website, they have a very popular product search where you enter a specific part code (6 digits) and it takes you to the product. So for example
Search: 123456
Page redirected to domain.com/product/123456
With a canonical of domain.com/product/this-is-the-product-title
Would it be beneficial to redirect from /product/123456 to /product/this-is-the-product-title
Google seems to be indexing both versions. For some of these products a reasonable amount of links are built.
-
No prob, let me know how things turn out (professional curiosity)
Like yourself my main project is dated in areas and a workaround is more cost effective than a rebuild, always interesting to see how people get around issues.
GL!
-
The 123456 url is only used in once place (or on banners in various places) any time this is in a category it is using the canonical url, once stock is loaded it only takes an hour for this to pull through. So the mass of links to this is the canonical url (however it usually has some form of tracking attached to it)
It's a very large and dated website, so we've got to try and get workarounds until development get round to sorting this kind of thing.
The mass of urls are showing as the canonicals, we've just got a few (hundreds) that aren't playing ball.
Really appreciate your help.
-
Sorry just want to check i understand this,
The product is originally created as domain.com/123456.html and is utilised at this url for a period of time.
You get the canonical url of domain.com/product-title.html later the day the product goes live.
You then create the canonical url and insert the canonical tags at a later time?
If all these are correct then it could explain why your having issues.
Google will crawl and index 123456.html pretty quickly, if this is the base url the product is created at you will most likely find that the links off your category pages use this url and any initial links use this url, this is bad for what you are trying to achieve.
When you then change to the canonical you create a situation where you have 2 copies of the page. 1 with loads of links pointing to it, especially internally, and another with no links. But your trying to tell google that the one with no links is the main version. I would bet this is why it is indexing both.
Even if you change all of the links and add the correct canonical tag it can take time for google to change, even then it can choose to ignore it (it can be frustrating).
Ideally you want to create the canonical URL first or at the same time as the 123456.html url and instantly add all the canonical tags, this way that all default links that a created internally point to it, and the first time it gets crawled it is already pointing to the canonical url.
In your current timetable, I would say redirects would be more suitable than canonical for both the order you release them and the general use.
About your plan,
If your timings are correct, then sure, that doesn't sound like too much of a time commitment and i think the benefit would be worth it. What I would expect to see within the month is the de-indexing of all the 123456.html versions
**Just remember, check all your canonicals actually need a 301 before doing them on bulk. You may have places on your site that you have canonicals because both versions of a page are needed, don't redirect these in your haste
-
Thank you for your response ATP.
I've done numerous checks and we're following all of the best practices, the only thing I can think of is that this url is the first that's seen (we only release stock on a time due to the nature of the business, we then only get the canonical on that day) so any scheduled work uses the part code, which we then at a later date manually change to the canonical url.
We are always trying to get these links changed to the correct version, however as we have a large site (570k+ pages) crawling for these is always an issue.
We can quite comfortably get a list of the canonicals thanks to screaming frog and being able to export our product codes (which are these six digit numbers). So you think it would be a viable solution to bulk upload our whole product catalog and on the /product/123456 urls redirecting to the /product/product-title and we should see a benefit from this? (Would take about an hours work initially then just adding current urls being 5 minutes a day)
-
Hi Thomas,
Firstly, the canonical does the same job as the 301 (for all intensive purposes) without the physical redirect. So in theory only the canonical should be being indexed and all the link juice should be being passed.
The fact that both are indexed suggests that the canonical isn't behaving as intended
- I would check for common cannonical errors to begin with
- If this isn't the case, i would suggest that the 123456 version has too many links maybe internally and externally and that google is ignoring the canonical because it has too much authority.
An issue with using canonical like this is that people who use the search are not sent to the main canonical url. This gives people the opportunity to copy and link to the wrong version of the url, which isn't a practice you want.
A possible solution would be to find all backlinks and get them changed to the main canonical version internally and externally, this could be a lot of work.
The 301 redirect is better in my opinion because it achieves the following
- Customer always see a useful URL and the main canonical URL
- Because of this, links will only likely be built the the url you want
- Google will de-index the 123456 version because it becomes inaccessible
However, unless you can automate this procedure, it can take too much time to create all those 301's for every product.
Personally i use the following guidlines as i find it keeps things clean and tidy
301 any url that isn't domain.com/main-product-url.html
keep the canonical on domain.com/main-product-url.html so that any version created from filtering or unexpected cms pages dont create duplicate content.
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
-
301 redirects
I am in the process of truncating many of the URLs using a plugin installed on Wordpress. The question is does google penalize or have issues with too many 301 redirects on your site. I have many many products I want to do this with. I thought I read somewhere that 301 redirects should be held to a minimum. Would appreciate any assistance
On-Page Optimization | | xinar0 -
How long should I leave an existing web page up after a 301 redirect?
I've been reading through a few of blog posts here on moz and can't seem to find the answer to these two questions: How long should I leave an existing page up after a 301 redirect? The page old page is no longer needed but has pretty high page authority. If I take the old page down—the one that I'm redirecting from—immediately after I set up the 301 redirect, will link juice still be passed to the new page? My second question is, right now, on my index.html page I have both a 301 redirect and a rel canonical tag in the head. They were both put in place to redirect and pass link equity respectively. I did this a couple years back after someone recommended that I do both just to be safe, but from what I've gathered reading the articles here on moz is that your supposed to pick one or the other depending on whether or not it's permanent. Should I remove the rel conanical tag or would it be better to just leave it be?
On-Page Optimization | | ScottMcPherson0 -
How to do this 301 redirection
Hi there! I have two domains with the same content. Some guys in this forum posted that It would be convinient to do a 301 redirect from one ".com" domain to ".es" domain (my potential market). I just tried to set it up in the htaccess file but it dind't worked at all. Something like: redirect 301 http://wwww.domain.com http://www.domain.es I just configure in the webmaster tools the domain www.domain.com as preferred domain insted of http://domain.comThe same with the other domain. Any help? many thanks
On-Page Optimization | | juanmiguelcr0 -
How to add canonical tag
Hi, I read through many of the forum questions dealing with the overly dynamic URLS and I think I understand. Please let me know if I know what I am talking about: If SEO moz is saying I have 20 pages (mostly search and home/index pages) with overly dynamic urls, I would go to the that particular page and add the following code between the head tag: This code would cause Google to go to this page instead of the following duplicate index pages: 1. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?pcsid=0a83aa7119cf3d80a1d018634ec4ec94&p 2. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?pcsid=18b220fc62628b013a51c6f26209df50&p There are a total of about 8 of these index pages. The problem is that I can't figure out where I would access each of these duplicate pages to add the canonical tag. There is only one home page with coding. As far as the search pages are concerned, I would not want Google to follow those pages would I? If that is the case, what would be the best code to add between the tags? For instance here are a couple of the overly-dynamic URL pages for the search pages: 1. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?p=catalog&mode=search&search_in=all&search_str= 2. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?pcsid=50354d5791e627dc2be6c86528154a5e&p=catalog&mode=search I hope I am not overwhelming anyone with my questions. I really am trying to get a handle on how Ll this stuff works. Thanks so much the help. Don
On-Page Optimization | | ge01734001 -
Google found bad links delete them or 301 redirect?
we went into our google account and saw about 70 bad links that they found on our site. what's the best thing to do, seo-wise: should we go into the pages that have the bad links and delete them from the html code, or re-direct them in our htaccess script?
On-Page Optimization | | DerekM880 -
Which Canonical URL Tag tag should we remove?
Hi guys, We are in the process of optimizing the pages of our new site. We have used the 'on page' report card feature in the Seomoz Pro Campaign analyser. On several pages we got the following result No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Number of Canonical tags <dl> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> </dl> I have looked into the source code of one of the pages http://www.sabaileela.co.uk/acupuncture-london and can see that there are two "canonical" tags. Does anyone have any advise on which one I should ask the developer to remove? I am not sure how to determine the relative importance of either link.
On-Page Optimization | | brian.james0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0 -
Cross-domain canonical
HI, We've got a German e-commerce site on an .at domain and would like to have a copy on a .de domain as we expect higher conversions for German users there. The idea now would be to make use of the cross-domain canonical tag, create a "duplicate" on the .de domain and add a canonical tag on all sites and refer to the original content on the .at domain. That would mean the .de won't rank, but German users could see the .de domain, Austrian users the .at domain in the address bar and everybody could feel "at home" ... that's the theory. What do you guys think? Valid strategy?
On-Page Optimization | | gmellak0