404 or rel="canonical" for empty search results?
-
We have search on our site, using the URL, so we might have: example.com/location-1/service-1, or example.com/location-2/service-2. Since we're a directory we want these pages to rank.
Sometimes, there are no search results for a particular location/service combo, and when that happens we show an advanced search form that lets the user choose another location, or expand the search area, or otherwise help themselves. However, that search form still appears at the URL example.com/location/service - so there are several location/service combos on our website that show that particular form, leading to duplicate content issues.
We may have search results to display on these pages in the future, so we want to keep them around, and would like Google to look at them and even index them if that happens, so what's the best option here? Should we rel="canonical" the page to the example.com/search (where the search form usually resides)? Should we serve the search form page with an HTTP 404 header? Something else?
I look forward to the discussion.
-
Nonindex sounds like a great idea. But should those empty search pages have the HTTP status 404 or 200?
-
That's smart about the title tag. I'm not super concerned about CTR for pages that have no content - but that's because I assume they're not ranked well, since they have no content, and I could be wrong about that. However, when they do start having content, that delay between when they have content and when Google updates the title that it displays will not be fun.
It looks like noindex is the way to go here - thanks to both you & Nico - I hadn't even thought of it, I was stuck on 404 vs canonical.
-
John,
I'm in agreement with Netzkern on this matter. If those pages currently have little to no value, I'd personally noindex those pages that provide no content. To answer your question, for them to be re-indexed, it would simply just take a new crawl. If you have your XML sitemaps setup correctly, resubmitting these when a page is no longer a 'noindex' should expedite this process.
Even if you do not take the above step, I would caution you not to change the Titles to include that there is no content at that specific location. Keep in mind that title tags serve to tell search engines what content is found on a page & to communicate the same for users when they see your page in a SERP. This would likely tank your CTR on any pages that had no content, which could pose a problem.
Hope this helps!
Trenton
-
Your'e right, ideally these URLs would not exist until needed. The problem I have is that our search is set up so it doesn't require an HTTP Post to the server - it works by manipulating the URL, so if someone searches for Service 5 at Location 1, the URL /location-1/service-5 has to present them with something - we're using a search form, but a signup form would work well too, and I think there is some limited use to the user to say "no, we don't have anything here."
I guess I could rebuild the page somewhat to make the "There are no results for Service 5 at Location 1" message bigger - it could even be in the Title / H1, then show my re-search or signup form - that would get rid of duplicate title tag problems, but my content would still essentially be the same - a form - so I'd have duplicate content problems.
Noindex would be a good idea, and easy to do. Do you know how easy it is to un-noindex later? As in, if I remove the noindex meta tag or header, how long will it take search engines to pick up on the change?
These URLs are in my sitemap too, and I should try to get rid of them there, but checking if there are search results in each location when building the sitemap is going to kill the webserver
-
I would not use a canonical here. I'd implement a logic that sets empty categories on noindex as long as they are empty IF they are really, really useful and needed there, which I kinda doubt. Might be if you display a "no entry yet - place your location here" registration form or something like that. Nearly as likely I'd just kill them and recreate them when/if there is actually useful content for the page. Core question I'd ask is: What exact use DO such pages have for users/search engines? (and NOT: What future use might they eventually have some day for you/others?)
Nico
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
-
No Follow & Rel Canon for Product Filters
Our site uses Canonicals to address duplicate content issues with product/facet filtering. example: www.mysite.com/product?color=blue Relcanon= www.mysite.com/product However, our site is also using no follow for all of the "filters" on a page (so all ?color=, etc. links are no follow). What is the benefit of utilizing the no follow on the filters if we have the rel canon in place? Is this an effort to save crawl budget? Are we giving up possible SEO juice by having the no follow and not having the crawler get to the canonical tag and subsequently reference the main page? Is this just something we just forget about? I hope we're not giving up SEO juice by
Technical SEO | | Remke0 -
Google not indexing /showing my site in search results...
Hi there, I know there are answers all over the web to this type of question (and in Webmaster tools) however, I think I have a specific problem that I can't really find an answer to online. site is: www.lizlinkleter.com Firstly, the site has been live for over 2 weeks... I have done everything from adding analytics, to submitting a sitemap, to adding to webmaster tools, to fetching each individual page as googlebot and then submitting to index via webmaster tools. I've checked my robot files and code elsewhere on the site and the site is not blocking search engines (as far as I can see) There are no security issues in webmaster tools or MOZ. Google says it has indexed 31 pages in the 'Index Status' section, but on the site dashboard it says only 2 URLS are indexed. When I do a site:www.lizlinketer.com search the only results I get are pages that are excluded in the robots file: /xmlrpc.php & /admin-ajax.php. Now, here's where I think the issue stems from - I developed the site myself for my wife and I am new to doing this, so I developed it on the live URL (I now know this was silly) - I did block the content from search engines and have the site passworded, but I think Google must have crawled the site before I did this - the issue with this was that I had pulled in the Wordpress theme's dummy content to make the site easier to build - so lots of nasty dupe content. The site took me a couple of months to construct (working on it on and off) and I eventually pushed it live and submitted to Analytics and webmaster tools (obviously it was all original content at this stage)... But this is where I made another mistake - I submitted an old site map that had quite a few old dummy content URLs in there... I corrected this almost immediately, but it probably did not look good to Google... My guess is that Google is punishing me for having the dummy content on the site when it first went live - fair enough - I was stupid - but how can I get it to index the real site?! My question is, with no tech issues to clear up (I can't resubmit site through webmaster tools) how can I get Google to take notice of the site and have it show up in search results? Your help would be massively appreciated! Regards, Fraser
Technical SEO | | valdarama0 -
Rel Canonical errors after seomoz crawling
Hi to all, I can not find which are the errors in my web pages with the tag cannonical ref. I have to many errors over 500 after seomoz crawling my domain and I don't know how to fix it. I share my URL for root page: http://www.vour.gr My rel canonical tag for this page is: http://www.vour.gr"/> Can anyone help me why i get error for this page? Many thanks.
Technical SEO | | edreamis0 -
Querystring params, rel canonical and SEO
I know ideally you should have as clean as possible url structures for optimal SEO. Our current site contains clean urls with very minimal use of query string params. There is a strong push, for business purposes to include click tracking on our site which will append a query string param to a large percentage of our internal links. Currently: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/ Will change to: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/?tg=zzzzwww We currently use rel canonical on all pages to properly define the true url in order to remove any possible duplicate content issues. Given we are already using rel canonical, if we implement the query string click tracking, will this negatively impact our SEO? If so, by how much? Could we run into duplicate content issues? We get crawled by Google a lot (very big site) and very large percent of our traffic is from Google, but there is a strong business need for this information so trying to weigh pros/cons.
Technical SEO | | NicB10 -
Which is best of narrow by search URLs? Canonical or NOINDEX
I have set canonical to all narrow by search URLs. I think, it's not working well. You can get more idea by following URLs. http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?material_search=1328 http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?finish_search=146 These kind of page have canonical tag which is pointing to following one. http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps Because, it's actual page which I want to out rank. But, all narrow by search URLs have very different products compare to base URLs. So, How can we say it duplicate one? Which is best solution for it. Canonical or NOINDEX it by Robots?
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
Google & async="true"
Hello, Any idea if Google (or Bing) parses/indexes content from scripts that are loaded using the async="true" attribute? In other words, is asynchronously loaded content indexable? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | phaistonian0 -
Does 301 redirect pass "freshness?"
Greetings! I work for an online retailer, and we recently launched a voting tool that allows customers to voice their opinion whether or not we should carry a new item. It's been a huge success and we've been generating thousands of comments. As a result, it's helped our SEO, and our products are showing up on the first page for some keywords without having any external links pointing to these pages. Our plan is to sell a product if it does well during the voting period. Unfortunately, we're not able to process the sale on the voting page, and need to redirect users to another page on our site. I understand that a 301 redirect transfers "linkjuice" to the new destination URL. But does it also transfer "freshness?" I ask because our new landing pages will not be updated as frequently as the voting pages. Example of our Voting Page:
Technical SEO | | znotes
http://www.uncommongoods.com/voting/product/50012/infant-fortune-cookie-booties Example of Redirected Item Page (where sale can be processed):
http://www.uncommongoods.com/product/baby-tube-socks-set-of-4 Any help/comments would be appreciated. Thank you!0 -
Correct 301 of domain inclusive "/"
Do I have to redirect "/" in the domain by default? My root domain is e.g. petra.at
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
--> I redirect via 301 to www.petra.at Do I have to do that with petra.at/ and www.petra.at/, too?0