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
-
Following urls should be add in disavow file or not
Hey Moz Friends, Should I include following spam link urls in disavow file or not? OR Will Google handle automatically? These type I have thousands urls. =>>>web-seek.org/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Rajesh.Prajapati
=>>>web-seek.net/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>websearching.net/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42/
=>>>websearch.pl/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>web-search.net/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42/
=>>>web-pages.org/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42/
=>>>web-page.org/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>the-world.net/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>the-internet.tv/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>the-internet.in/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>the-globe.tv/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42/
=>>>theglobe.sk/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>theglobe.ru/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<=
=>>>theglobe.pl/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages_42.html<<<= Hope you will give any solution. Waiting for your positive response.0 -
Dodgy links across top ranking sites in a certain industry - Could this be negative link building?
Hi, I've noticed repeated low value / high spam backlinks directing to a site that I manage, and despite disavowing, new links showing similar anchor text keep appearing. See sample in the table below: <colgroup><col width="514"> <col width="407"> <col width="364"></colgroup>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Alexanders
| biz.mfso.info/files/images/vertical-blinds-for-bifold-doors.html | | Get free high quality HD wallpapers vertical blinds for bifold doors |
| nmr.mfso.info/files/images/mould-on-vertical-blinds.html | | Get free high quality HD wallpapers mould on vertical blinds |
| nmr.mfso.info/files/images/install-vertical-blinds.html | | Get free high quality HD wallpapers install vertical blinds |
| nmr.mfso.info/files/images/cutting-vertical-blinds.html | | Get free high quality HD wallpapers cutting vertical blinds |
| rre.uere.info/files/images/high-quality-vertical-blinds.html | HD wallpapers high quality vertical blinds rre.uere.info | Get free high quality HD wallpapers high quality vertical blinds |
| dig.uere.info/files/images/mould-on-vertical-blinds.html | HD wallpapers mould on vertical blinds dig.uere.info | Get free high quality HD wallpapers mould on vertical blinds |
| dig.uere.info/files/images/mould-on-vertical-blinds.html | HD wallpapers mould on vertical blinds dig.uere.info | Get free high quality HD wallpapers mould on vertical blinds |
| hja.uere.info/files/images/cost-vertical-blinds.html | HD wallpapers cost vertical blinds hja.uere.info | Get free high quality HD wallpapers cost vertical blinds | I also looked across 5 high ranking sites in the same industry and noticed they too have these 'dodgy' links in their backlink profiles. Could this be negative link building? If so, does anyone know a way to trace it or get it stop?0 -
Is this site buying backlinks?
dankstop.com Almost all of their links come from mainly the same few sites, and some of their links have a really high spam score.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | tlorenzi0 -
Duplicate content - multiple sites hosted on same server with same IP address
We have three sites hosted on the same server with the same IP address. For SEO (to avoid duplicate content) reasons we need to redirect the IP address to the site - but there are three different sites. If we use the "rel canonical" code on the websites, these codes will be duplicates too, as the websites are mirrored versions of the sites with IP address, e.g. www.domainname.com/product-page and 23.34.45.99/product-page. What's the best ways to solve these duplicate content issues in this case? Many thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Jade0 -
Site that's 301 redirected is ranking for brand
We own a number of foreign TLD domains for our brand. They are all 301-redirected to our main .com branded domain. One of them is appearing in our branded search results, outranking out main .com page. To be clear, this is despite there being a 301 redirect from it to the .com page. Any ideas on what is going on here?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ipancake0 -
If our site hasn't been hit with the Phantom Update, are we clear?
Our SEO provider created a bunch of "unique url" websites that have direct match domain names. The content is pretty much the same for over 130 websites (city name is different) that link directly to our main site. For me this was a huge red flag, but when I questioned them and they said it was fine. We haven't seen a drop in traffic, but concerned that Google just hasn't gotten to us. DA for each of these sites are 1 after several months. Should we be worried? I think yes, but I am an SEO newbie.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Buddys0 -
Auto-link inside your own site to the same domain is white-hat?
Hi, I am using a plugin in wordpress that make auto link for some certain keywords in my site suppose: My site is example.com My important keyword is: sample and across the domain example.com through out the content if there is the word: sample it is linked automatically to example.com I like your opinion about this practice, if it may carry any kind of punishment by SEs? Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Pooria0 -
Is it possible that since the Google Farmer's Update, that people practicing Google Bowling can negatively affect your site?
We have hundreds of random bad links that have been added to our sites across the board that nobody in our company paid for. Two of our domains have been penalized and three of our sites have pages that have been penalized. Our sites are established with quality content. One was built in 2007, the other in 2008. We pay writers to contribute quality and unique content. We just can't figure out a) Why the sites were pulled out of Google indexing suddenly after operating well for years b) Where the spike in links came from. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dahnyogaworks0