Canonicalization
-
I understand what canonicalization does, however I'm a bit confused on one point.
Generally, of course it's used to determine the main article out of two which are identical.
But what happens to the keywords if the content isn't quite identical?
Example:-
Let's say the 'first page' it is optimised for 'racing cycles'.
The 'second page' is optimised for 'second-hand racing cycles'Let's assume that the 'first page' doesn't have any reference to 'used' or 'second-hand' so it would be essentially unrelated to the 'second page'.
If I then add an canonical tag to the 'second page' that points to the 'first page' in theory, the 'second page' will drop from the search rankings and pass any link authority back to the 'first page'
What I want to know is will the 'first page', then rank for the keywords that the second page used to rank for? (in this case 'second-hand racing cycles')
-
Hi Mike,
That new tool is very revealing and supports my experience that you can't dupe Google into ranking a different page just by canonicalization. Thanks!
Nigel
-
Hi seoman,
I think Nigel is spot-on here and has summarized the issues at hand well.
One thing to add: If you do deploy canonicals but are not sure how/when Google is respecting or ignoring them, the new "URL Inspector" tool in the new version of Search Console provides some helpful (and unprecedented) reporting detail on this, including URLs for "User-declared canonical" (what you set in your tag) and "Google-selected canonical" (the URL Google opted to treat as canonical).
While there doesn't seem to be any clarity as to why Google selected an alternative, sometimes the URL they picked provides a hint. We've never had this clarity from Google before on when they've opted to select a different canonical URL, so it's good to at least know when it's happening.
Best,
Mike -
Hi seoman
Canonicalisation was set up by Google originally to deal with pages which were basically the same but had two different URLs so for example:
website/cycles/racing-cycles
website/cycles/productid=123If the URL contained content that was the same then you would add a canonical on the second one pointing at the first. The second one would then drop from serps and the first one would be allowed to breathe and in most cases rise because the duplicate content was taken away.
People then started to use it in a more sophisticated way and as your example shows you could canonicalse 'second-hand racing cycles to racing-cycles. This would only be in a circumstance where you believed that the content on the second-hand page was so similar to the racing-cycles page that you would find it really hard to rank for both.
So you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles which could be a good move. The thing is that Google won't combine content from both pages it will simply rely on the content of the racing-cycles page to rank it. You must make sure that the racing-cycles page contains everything you would want both pages to be found for.
Now here's the problem.
If you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles and the two pages are very different then Google can start to distrust your canonicals and show the page in serps anyway! (serps = search engine results pages - so they have to be very similar. It would truly be a disaster if you canonicalise one to the other and they both still ranked (badly ) but I have seen this happen.
So the rule is:
1. Only canonicalise if both pages serve the same user intent
2. Make sure that the two pages are very similar otherwise Google can ignore the canonical
3. If they are just not similar build-up the content on second-hand cycles to take it away from just racing-cycles and have it as a separate page or sub-page of racing-cycles.The conclusion is that if you want racing-cycles to rank for all the keywords and phrases that second-hand cycles does, then include them and synonyms on the page.
I hope that helps
Nigel
-
If the contents are not identical, you don't need to worry about losing the rankings. Second-page ranking will be dropped if contents are same.
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
-
Duplicate content and canonicalization confusion
Hello, http://bit.ly/1b48Lmp and http://bit.ly/1BuJkUR pages have same content and their canonical refers to the page itself. Yet, they rank in search engines. Is it because they have been targeted to different geographical locations? If so, still the content is same. Please help me clear this confusion. Regards
Technical SEO | | IM_Learner0 -
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Well, what can I say question is on the title 😛
Technical SEO | | atakala
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Thank you mozzers.
I LOVE u guyz.0 -
Canonicalization help
Hi Moz Community, If I have two different sub-category pages: http://www.example.com/rings/anniversary-rings/
Technical SEO | | IceIcebaby
http://www.example.com/wedding/anniversary-rings/ And the first one is ranking for all KWs, should I add a rel=canonical to the second URL or leave it since it's slightly different? Or should I try and create different unique content for the second URL? Everything in terms of content is the same on both these pages except for the URLs, which aren't that different to begin with. Thanks for your help! -Reed0 -
Canonicalization on my website
I am kind of new to all this but I would like to understand canonicalization. I have a website which when you arrive on it is www.mysite.com but once inside and flicking back to the homepage it reverts to www.mysite.com/index.html. Should I be doing something re canonicalization? If so what? Will the link juice be diluted by having two home page versions? Thanks
Technical SEO | | FCAbroad0 -
Which Pagination/Canonicalization Page Selection Approach Should be Used?
Currently working on a retail site that has a product category page with a series of pages related to each other i.e. page 1, page 2, page 3 and Show All page. These are being identified as duplicate content/title pages. I want to resolve this through the applications of pagination to the pages so that crawlers know that these pages belong to the same series. In addition to this I also want to apply canonicalization to point to one page as the one true result that rules them all. All pages have equal weight but I am leaning towards pointing at the ‘Show All’. Catch is that products consistently change meaning that I am sometimes dealing with 4 pages including Show All, and other times I am only dealing with one page (...so actually I should point to page 1 to play it safe). Silly question, but is there a hard and fast rule to setting up this lead page rule?
Technical SEO | | Oxfordcomma0 -
Canonicalization Issue?
Good day! I am not sure if my company has a Canonicalization issue? When typing in www.cushingco.com the site redirects to http://www.cushingco.com/index.shtml A visitor can also type in http://cushingco.com/index.shtml into a web browser and land on our homepage (and the url will be http://www.cushingco.com/index.shtml) A majority of websites that link to our company point to: http://www.cushingco.com/index.shtml We are in the process of cleaning up citations and pulling together a content marketing strategy/editorial calendar. I want to be sure folks interested in linking to us have the right url. Please ask me any questions to help narrow down what we might be doing incorrectly. Thanks in advance!! Jon
Technical SEO | | SEOSponge0 -
Http & https canonicalization issues
Howdyho I'm SEOing a daily deals site that mostly runs on https Versions. (only the home page is on http). I'm wondering what to do for canonicalization. IMO it would be easiest to run all pages on https. But the scarce resources I find are not so clear. For instance, this Youmoz blog post claims that https is only for humans, not for bots! That doesn't really apply anymore, right?
Technical SEO | | zeepartner0 -
Internal file extension canonicalization
Ok no doubt this is straightforward, however seem to be finding to hard to find a simple answer; our websites' internal pages have the extension .html. Trying to the navigate to that internal url without the .html extension results in a 404. The question is; should a 401 be used to direct to the extension-less url to future proof? and should internal links direct to the extension-less url for the same reason? Hopefully that makes sense and apologies for what I believe is a straightforward answer;
Technical SEO | | jg1000