Site build in the 80% of canonical URLs - What is the impact on visibility?
-
Hey Everyone,
I represent international wall decorations store where customer can freely choose a pattern to be printed on a given material among a few milions of patterns. Due to extreme large number of potential URL combinations we struggle with too many URL adressess for a months now (search console notifications). So we finally decided to reduce amount of products with canonical tag. Basing on users behavior, our business needs and monthly search volume data we selected 8 most representative out of 40 product categories and made them canonical toward the rest.
For example: If we chose 'Canvas prints' as our main product category, then every 'Framed canvas' product URL points rel=canonical tag toward its equivalent URL within 'Canvas prints' category. We applied the same logic to other categories (so "Vinyl wall mural - Wild horses running" URL points rel=canonical tag to "Wall mural - Wild horses running" URL, etc).
In terms of Googlebot interpretation, there are really tiny differences between those Product URLs, so merging them with rel=canonical seems like a valid use. But we need to keep those canonicalised URLs for users needs, so we can`t remove them from a store as well as noindex does not seem like an good option.
However we`re concerned about our SEO visibility - if we make those changes, our site will consist of ~80% canonical URLs (47,5/60 millions). Regarding your experience, do you have advices how should we handle that issue?
Regards
JMB -
Thanks for your opinion David.We use a dedicated solution based on Symphony framework but we migrate to Kohana currently - that
s why we decided it
s good time to make changes in the SEO field as well. -
Hi JMB,
I agree with Andy and think what you've done will work well.
What CMS does the site use?
I've worked on plenty of big Magento e-commerce sites (from 5k to 5mil pages - so not quite your 60 mil!), but Magento handles this kind of thing very well by default, and in much the same way you have described.
Magento always canonicalizes product URLs to the base URL, no matter what product category they are in.
Eg. a product could be available under multiple categories and it will always use the same canonical tag:
yoursite.com/category-1/product-name/
yoursite.com/category-1/sub-cat/product-name/
yoursite.com/category-1/sub-cat-2/product-name/
yoursite.com/category-2/product-name/All of these variations would be canonicalized to:
This works perfectly and I've never seen any issues with this.
The only difference with yours is that products are canonicalized to a main category - which actually sounds better to me because then the canonical URL is actually linked from the site (not just "linked" through canonical tags).
I think you'll see some great results with what you've done! But it might take a few months to see the results on a site that size!
Cheers,
David
-
Yes I mean in terms of organic search positions. We have solid UX team, and all the other channels are very well covered.
-
When you say the site is under-performing, are you talking just in terms of search positions or once you get visitors there as well? Is the UX all in order and have you completed tests to make sure people are navigating their way around correctly?
-Andy
-
Hey Andy, thanks for your response. We decided to do it right know because of major website changes we are going through currently (framework, layout, tree category etc.). There was no significant organic traffic drop but site is underperforming in general, and we excluded other explanations such as backlink profile or strong competitors.
-
Hi JMB,
What you have done sounds like it makes sense. A little awkward to visualise, but reducing duplication / similar pages through the use of rel=canonical is the right thing to do.
Aside from search console, was there a drop in the SERP's that made you want to do something about this?
Regarding SEO, don't worry about your site having so many canonical pages. The root page is there for indexing while the canonical pages are needed for the user - it sounds to me like you are doing the right thing.
-Andy
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
-
"Google chose different canonical than user" Issue Can Anyone help?
Our site https://www.travelyaari.com/ , some page are showing this error ("Google chose different canonical than user") on google webmasters. status message "Excluded from search results". Affected on our route page urls mainly. https://www.travelyaari.com/popular-routes-listing Our canonical tags are fine, rel alternate tags are fine. Can anyone help us regarding why it is happening?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RobinJA0 -
Duplicate keywords in URL?
Is there such a thing as keyword stuffing URLs? Such as a domain name of turtlesforsale.com having a directory called turtles-for-sale that houses all the pages on the site. Every page would start out with turtlesforsale.com/turtles-for-sale/. Good or bad idea? The owner is hoping to capitalize on the keywords of turtles for sale being in the URL twice and ranking better for that reason.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
One page with multiple sections - unique URL for each section
Hi All, This is my first time posting to the Moz community, so forgive me if I make any silly mistakes. A little background: I run a website that for a company that makes custom parts out of specialty materials. One of my strategies is to make high quality content about all areas of these specialty materials to attract potential customers - pretty strait-forward stuff. I have always struggled with how to structure my content; from a usability point of view, I like just having one page for each material, with different subsections covering covering different topical areas. Example: for a special metal material I would have one page with subsections about the mechanical properties, thermal properties, available types, common applications, etc. Basically how Wikipedia organizes its content. I do not have a large amount of content for each section, but as a whole it makes one nice cohesive page for each material. I do use H tags to show the specific sections on the page, but I am wondering if it may be better to have one page dedicated to the specific material properties, one page dedicated to specific applications, and one page dedicated to available types. What are the communities thoughts on this? As a user of the website, I would rather have all of the information on a single, well organized page for each material. But what do SEO best practices have to say about this? My last thought would be to create a hybrid website (I don't know the proper term). Have a look at these examples from Time and Quartz. When you are viewing a article, the URL is unique to that page. However, when you scroll to the bottom of the article, you can keep on scrolling into the next article, with a new unique URL - all without clicking through to another page. I could see this technique being ideal for a good web experience while still allowing me to optimize my content for more specific topics/keywords. If I used this technique with the Canonical tag would I then get the best of both worlds? Let me know your thoughts! Thank you for the help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jaspercurry0 -
Is Link Building Dead?
I know there are various posts about this but none of them are up to date. I am so reluctant to do any linking now as I was hurt by google algorithms (without even knowing I was doing anything bad back in April 2012). I am just overwhelmed with all the seo info out there - I have written articles, blog on my site, lots of facebook postings but I don't seem to reach people I now have someone who wants to help me get a new linking structure to get my ranking back but the whole idea scares me. He basically wants to do the following using social media platforms only to get natural links (is this a very bad idea? ANY comments will be appreciated: Proposed Plan includes 200-250 Do-Follow Themed Links to your “TARGET SITE” 50 Approved Social Bookmarking Links: - 2 articles are used to build 50 PR 3-9 do-follow links with guaranteed approvals. 25 Approved Article Submission Links: - 2 articles are used to build 25 PR 3-9 do-follow links with guaranteed approvals. 20 Approved Press Release Links: -2 articles are used to build 20 PR 3-9 do-follow links with guaranteed approvals. 50 Approved Web 2.0 Properties: - 2 articles are used to build 50 PR 3-9 do-follow links with guaranteed approvals. 30 Approved Classified Links: - 2 articles are used to build 30 PR 3-9 do-follow links with guaranteed approvals.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Llanero0 -
Moving content to a clean URL
Greetings My site was seriously punished in the recent penguin update. I foolishly got some bad out sourced spammy links built and I am now paying for it 😞 I am now thinking it best to start fresh on a new url, but I am wondering if I can use the content from the flagged site on the new url. Would this be flagged as duplicate content, even if i took the old site down? your help is greatly appreciated Silas
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Silasrose0 -
2 sites in one niche?
Hello, Can you be penalized for having 2 ecommerce sites in the same niche? Is there a way to do it white-hat? Please explain.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
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 -
Links to partner sites
I have some partnerships in some portals, usually I put the banner of my company with a link to my site on a space partners. How should I proceed? To place the banner no link? To put the link nofollow? Can’t I do it? Don’t I need to worry about it?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | soulmktpro0