Any SEO-wizards out there who can tell me why Google isn't following the canonicals on some pages?
-
Hi,
I am banging my head against the wall regarding the website of a costumer: In "duplicate title tags" in GSC I can see that Google is indexing a whole bunch parametres of many of the url's on the page. When I check the rel=canonical tag, everything seems correct. My costumer is the biggest sports retailer in Norway. Their webshop has approximately 20 000 products. Yet they have more than 400 000 pages indexed by Google.
So why is Google indexing pages like this? What is missing in this canonical?https://www.gsport.no/herre/klaer/bukse-shorts?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=descWhy isn't Google just cutting off the ?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=desc part of the url?Can it be the canonical-tag itself, or could the problem be somewhere in the CMS?
Looking forward to your answers
- Sigurd
-
Thank you all! I have forwarded this to the owner of the page, so now we'll just sit back and see the effects
-
Hi Inevo,
David and Jake's comments and recommendations are spot on correct. You need to update your robots.txt file. Jake is correct when he said "just because a canonical tag is in place, that doesn't prevent Google from crawling and indexing the page."
Sincerely,
Dana
-
Hi Inevo,
Canonical tags are being used correctly and it doesn't actually look like any of the URLs with query strings are indexed in Google.
I'm going to go off the topic of canonicals now, but still related to the crawl and index of the site:
Has the site changed CMS in the last year or two? It's possible that some of the 400k URLs indexed are old or were not canonicalized properly at some point in time, so they were indexed.
The problem with how the site it currently setup is that it is basically impossible for search engines to crawl because of the product filter. I wrote an article about this a while ago (link), specifically to do with product filters in Magento. Product filters can turn your site into a 'black hole' for search engines - which is definitely happening in this case (try crawling it with Screaming Frog).
I'd recommend blocking product filter URLs from being crawled so that search engines are only crawling important pages on the site.
You should be able to fix this be adding these 3 lines to your Robots.txt:
Disallow: *?
Disallow: *+
Allow: *?p=(Note: please check that you don't need to add more parameters to Allow)
These changes will make crawling your site much more efficient - from millions of crawlable URLs, to probably 30-35k.
Let me know how this goes for you
Cheers,
David
-
I would definitely check to make sure the canonical tag is being properly used. Make sure it is an absolute url vs. a relative url.
That being said, please note that just because a canonical tag is in place, that doesn't prevent Google from crawling and indexing the page, and including the page in search results with the site:domain command. If you see the canonicalized URLs outranking their canonical, then you can start to question why Google isn't honoring the canonical.
Please note that canonical tags are a recommendation and not a directive.. meaning Google doesn't have to honor them if they do not feel the page is truly a canonical.
-Jake
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
-
Rel=Canonical For Landing Pages
We have PPC landing pages that are also ranking in organic search. We've decided to create new landing pages that have been improved to rank better in natural search. The PPC team however wants to use their original landing pages so we are unable to 301 these pages to the new pages being created. We need to block the old PPC pages from search. Any idea if we can use rel=canonical? The difference between old PPC page and new landing page is much more content to support keyword targeting and provide value to users. Google says it's OK to use rel=canonical if pages are similar but not sure if this applies to us. The old PPC pages have 1 paragraph of content followed by featured products for sale. The new pages have 4-5 paragraphs of content and many more products for sale. The other option would be to add meta noindex to the old PPC landing pages. Curious as to what you guys think. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
Category URL Pagination where URLs don't change between pages
Hello, I am working on an e-commerce site where there are categories with multiple pages. In order to avoid pagination issues I was thinking of using rel=next and rel=prev and cannonical tags. I noticed a site where the URL doesn't change between pages, so whether you're on page 1,2, or 3 of the same category, the URL doesn't change. Would this be a cleaner way of dealing with pagination?
Technical SEO | | whiteonlySEO0 -
Canonical Tags on Parameter Pages With Hreflang
Hey Everyone: We are currently implementing hreflang tags on our site, and we have many parameter pages with hreflang tags; however, I am afraid these may be counted as duplicate content without canonical tags. example.com/utm_source=tpi href='http://example.com/de" hreflang="de" rel="alternate" href='http://example.com/nl" hreflang="nl" rel="alternate" href='http://example.com/fr" hreflang="fr" rel="alternate" href='http://example.com/it" hreflang="it" rel="alternate" I have two questions 1. Do I need a canonical tag pointing to example.com ? 2. On the homepage without the parameter, should I add self referencing hreflang tags? (href="http://example.com/" hreflang="es" Thanks so much for your help! Kyle
Technical SEO | | TeespringMoz0 -
I'm looking for a good SEO
I need someone that can help me with my SEO. I am too busy to do it and the last person that did it, I really feel didn't do a good job. Please message me (If that is possible). I am looking for on-page, probably disavowing a good bit of links, and anything else that someone can point me in the right direction to do. I'm having some pretty major issues with my guy right now and I just feel like my rankings are falling off of the map because of it. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Veebs0 -
Duplicate page errors from pages don't even exist
Hi, I am having this issue within SEOmoz's Crawl Diagnosis report. There are a lot of crawl errors happening with pages don't even exist. My website has around 40-50 pages but SEO report shows that 375 pages have been crawled. My guess is that the errors have something to do with my recent htaccess configuration. I recently configured my htaccess to add trailing slash at the end of URLs. There is no internal linking issue such as infinite loop when navigating the website but the looping is reported in the SEOmoz's report. Here is an example of a reported link: http://www.mywebsite.com/Door/Doors/GlassNow-Services/GlassNow-Services/Glass-Compliance-Audit/GlassNow-Services/GlassNow-Services/Glass-Compliance-Audit/ btw there is no issue such as crawl error in my Google webmaster tool. Any help appreciated
Technical SEO | | mmoezzi0 -
Are Collapsible DIV's SEO-Friendly?
When I have a long article about a single topic with sub-topics I can make it user friendlier when I limit the text and hide text just showing the next headlines, by using expandable-collapsible div's. My doubt is if Google is really able to read onclick textlinks (with javaScript) or if it could be "seen" as hidden text? I think I read in the SEOmoz Users Guide, that all javaScript "manipulated" contend will not be crawled. So from SEOmoz's Point of View I should better make use of old school named anchors and a side-navigation to jump to the sub-topics? (I had a similar question in my post before, but I did not use the perfect terms to describe what I really wanted. Also my text is not too long (<1000 Words) that I should use pagination with rel="next" and rel="prev" attributes.) THANKS for every answer 🙂
Technical SEO | | inlinear0 -
Will rel=canonical cause a page to be indexed?
Say I have 2 pages with duplicate content: One of them is: http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage This page is the one I want to be indexed on google (domain rank already built, etc.) http://www.originalpage.com is more of an ease of use domain, primarily for printed material. If both of these sites are identical, will rel=canonical pointing to "http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage" cause it to be indexed? I do not plan on having any links on my site going to "http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage", they would instead go to "http://www.originalpage.com".
Technical SEO | | jgower0 -
Getting Google to index new pages
I have a site, called SiteB that has 200 pages of new, unique content. I made a table of contents (TOC) page on SiteB that points to about 50 pages of SiteB content. I would like to get SiteB's TOC page crawled and indexed by Google, as well as all the pages it points to. I submitted the TOC to Pingler 24 hours ago and from the logs I see the Googlebot visited the TOC page but it did not crawl any of the 50 pages that are linked to from the TOC. I do not have a robots.txt file on SiteB. There are no robot meta tags (nofollow, noindex). There are no 'rel=nofollow' attributes on the links. Why would Google crawl the TOC (when I Pinglered it) but not crawl any of the links on that page? One other fact, and I don't know if this matters, but SiteB lives on a subdomain and the URLs contain numbers, like this: http://subdomain.domain.com/category/34404 Yes, I know that the number part is suboptimal from an SEO point of view. I'm working on that, too. But first wanted to figure out why Google isn't crawling the TOC. The site is new and so hasn't been penalized by Google. Thanks for any ideas...
Technical SEO | | scanlin0