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.
-
I'm with you on using rel=canonical but the new pages are slightly different in that they have a lot more content for SEO purposes. The content definitely provides value to users but wondering if the extra content means Google will ignore canonical tag? Google mentions that canonical is good for duplicates where pages are very similar if not identical.
-
So we're also planning on A/B testing the original PPC pages. There are going to be 2 control pages vs 1 test (original URL). There are about 12 control pages.
Normally I would use rel=canonical for landing pages if the control page was actually ranking organically which is the case now but we're going to block them from search results when the new organic pages roll out. I'm assuming no indexing the test variations would be the best direction to take?
-
Yes, this is exactly what's happening
-
Yes, they don't want to change URLs in all their marketing campaigns (offline, email, social media, etc)
-
Hi,
In my view add content in existing PPC page which is ranking in search results and ask PPC team to create a new landing page.
PPC campaign performance won't be derailed by having a new landing page
Hope it helps!!!
Thanks
-
The canonical option would be the route I went with in this scenario.
If you are going to noindex them, make sure that you audit the pages to see what links are pointing to the pages. If there is value them, canonicalization would be a better approach.
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
-
Top Landing Page has disappeared from Google Search Console but still shows at the top of Google
Hi, One of the top landing pages in my website has disappeared from GSC Search Analytics results. But I do get a good traffic from that page until now. What might be the reason for GSC to stop showing it on the results?
Technical SEO | | eduapps0 -
Contact Page
I'm currently designing a new website for my wife, who just started her own wedding/engagement photography business. I'm trying to build it as SEO friendly as possible, but she brought up an idea that she likes that I've never tried before. Typically on all the websites I've ever built, I've had a dedicated contact page that has the typical contact form. Because that contact form on a wedding photographers website is almost as important as selling a product on an e-commerce site, she brought up the possibility of putting the contact form in the footer site-wide (minus maybe the homepage) rather than having a dedicated contact page. And in the navigation, where you have links such as "Home", "Portfolio", "About", "Prices", "Contact", etc. the "Contact" navigation item would transfer the user to the bottom of the page they are on rather than a new page. Any thoughts on which way would be better for a case like this, and any positives/negatives for doing it each way? One thought I had is that if it's in the footer rather than it's own page, it would lose it's search-ability as it's technically duplicate content on each page. But then again, that's what a footer is. Thanks, Mickey
Technical SEO | | shannmg10 -
Why Canonical error?
I just got my SEOMOZ run and it says I have a CANONICAL ERROR: Scorpio Earrings - 7mm Stud - Sterling Silver http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm I'm not sure why--I only changed the <title>tag--not the URL.</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">Why would this generate a canonical error?</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">Kathleen</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">astrojewelry.com</span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p></title>
Technical SEO | | spkcp1110 -
Duplicate Page Titles Warnings, htaccess Rewrite & Canonical Links.
Hey guys, Just signed up for a pro account and I am getting Duplicate Page Title warnings on links that are duplicate, rewritten for SEO, but have a canonical href tag. I have two sets of links in my store: SEO friendly: http://www.mysite.com/item/iphone-case Operational link: http://www.mysite.com/shop/product.php?pid=11 This operational link however has a href canonical tag pointing to the SEO friendly link as being the primary link. My question is; Do I need to worry about this Duplicate Page Title Warning if I am using a canonical tag on the Operational link pointing to the SEO friendly link? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | jason3600 -
Rel = Canonical in Blog Posting
Hello, I keep coming back to rel=canonical issues! I noticed when I "view pagesource" that my drupal blog posting automatically creates link rel="canonical" href="/sample-blog-title" /< pattern (with the > reversed) in the source code. I'm getting a lot of Rel=Canonical warnings and double content warnings from Seomoz so I've been trying to insert link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/blog/my-awesome-blog-post"< but the page won't retain the code for some reason. I'm entering the code in Plain Text, but saving the document as Full HTML. Is there a better piece of code I can put in to demonstrate that the original blog page is the original source? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | OTSEO0 -
Can you 301 redirect a page to an already existing/old page ?
If you delete a page (say a sub department/category page on an ecommerce store) should you 301 redirect its url to the nearest equivalent page still on the site or just delete and forget about it ? Generally should you try and 301 redirect any old pages your deleting if you can find suitable page with similar content to redirect to. Wont G consider it weird if you say a page has moved permenantly to such and such an address if that page/address existed before ? I presume its fine since say in the scenario of consolidating departments on your store you want to redirect the department page your going to delete to the existing pages/department you are consolidating old departments products into ?
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Event Landing Pages not ranking
Hi there I need to optimize the website of a club/concert venue. The site isn't bad and has authority, but the event pages don't seem to rank and I'm unsure about the reason. There is an overview page of the events: http://www.kaufleuten.ch/events/ What happens currently when clicking on a specific event (on "WEITER", top right of each event) is that users get redirected to a hashtag page by jQuery. The href of "WEITER" itself links to another landing page (which is IMO the one we should see ranking for the specific event). Here is a concrete example: Look at the event "Tanz & Konzert: Andreas Vollenweider, Seven & ROKPA-KIDS" on /events by clicking on "WEITER", you get directed to http://www.kaufleuten.ch/events/#2790/andreas-vollenweider the actual "WEITER" link in the source code though, points to the landing page http://www.kaufleuten.ch/event/andreas-vollenweider/ This seems to be done by an AJAX load: jQuery loads a DIV with the ID "ajax-content". Apparently, this is the code responsible for it: $(„.link“, click(function() {
Technical SEO | | zeepartner
el.find('.wrapper').load(target+' #ajax-content', function() {
});
return false;
}); I know the site has good authority and should rank well. however, the event landing pages never seem to appear, but only the page /events is ranking: SERP
(Strangely, when using the site command, the event page suddenly appears above: SERP. (But I have never seen this in a "normal search query", even though we are the organisers and should at least be among the top 5). Now my question: Does Google consider this AJAX load to be some sort of cloaking? (because the href in the code is different to you actually end up by clicking "WEITER"). Will the landing pages begin to rank if we disable this AJAX load? Or should we stick to hashtags and not even create landing pages? (but then, we will have no control over title tags of specific events, right?) Thanks for your help, I'm a bit lost here as my JS knowledge is meagre... Cheers,
Phil0