Best Practice Approaches to Canonicals vs. Indexing in Google Sitemap vs. No Follow Tags
-
Hi There,
I am working on the following website: https://wave.com.au/
I have become aware that there are different pages that are competing for the same keywords.
For example, I just started to update a core, category page - Anaesthetics (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/) to focus mainly around the keywords ‘Anaesthetist Jobs’.
But I have recognized that there are ongoing landing pages that contain pretty similar content:
We want to direct organic traffic to our core pages e.g. (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/).
This then leads me to have to deal with the duplicate pages with either a canonical link (content manageable) or maybe alternatively adding a no-follow tag or updating the robots.txt. Our resident developer also suggested that it might be good to use Google Index in the sitemap to tell Google that these are of less value?
What is the best approach? Should I add a canonical link to the landing pages pointing it to the category page? Or alternatively, should I use the Google Index? Or even another approach?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-
This all sounds good, just make sure before you proceed, you use GA to check what % of your SEO (segment: "Organic") traffic comes from these URLs. Don't act on a hunch, act on data!
-
Thank you for the comprehensive response this is greatly appreciated my friend.
Yes, I agree. I have since read further and have completely ruled out blocking (robots txt. etc) as an option.
I went back and read some more Moz/SEO articles and I think I have narrowed it down to either:
a) canonicals pointing from the landing pages to the core website category pages
b) NoIndex/Follow tags on the landing pages
Basically, I think the key contextual factors to keep in mind are that:
- The landing pages are basically just sent to people directly by our recruiters in emails and over the phone, so they are almost counted as direct traffic.
- It just contains a form and doesn't encourage click through into our core website beside logo etc. - we just want them to register directly on that page.
- Over the past year, the visits on the landing pages were much, much less, and the bounce rate and exit % was higher.
- my manager has told me to prioritise the SEO towards the core category pages as they see the landing pages as purely for UX/registrations/useful to internal business recruiting practices rather than encouraging organic traffic.
I think canonicals would probably work the best since in some cases the landing pages were ranking higher than the category pages and it should hopefully transfer a bit of ranking power to the category pages.
But perhaps you are right and I can batch apply canonicals monitor the results and then progress.
Once again, thank you for your response.
-
First of all keep in mind that Google has chosen the pages it is deciding to rank for one reason or another, and that canonical tags do not consolidate link equity (SEO authority) in the same way which 301 redirects do
As such, it's possible that you could implement a very 'logical' canonical tag structure, but for whatever reason Google may not give your new 'canonical' URLs the same rankings which it ascribed to the old URLs. So there is a possibility here that, you could lose some rankings! Google's acceptance of both the canonical tag and the 301 redirect depends upon the (machine-like) similarity of the content on both URLs
Think of Boolean string similarity. You get two strings of text, whack them into a tool like this one - and it tells you the 'percentage' of similarity between the two text strings. Google operate something similar yet infinitely more sophisticated. No one has told me that they do this, I have observed it over hundreds of site migration projects where, sometimes Google gives the new site loads of SEO authority through the 301s and sometimes not much at all. For me, the two main causes of Google refusing to accept new canonical URLs are redirect chains (which could include soft redirect chains) but also content 'dissimilarity'. Basically, content has won links and interactions on one URL which prove it is popular and authoritative. If you move that content somewhere else, or tell Google to go somewhere else instead - they have to be pretty certain that the new content is pretty much the same, otherwise it's a risk to them and an 'unknown quantity' in the SERPs (in terms of CTR and stuff)
If you're pretty damn sure that you have loads of URLs which are essentially the same, read the same, reference the same prices for things (one isn't cheaper than the other), that Google has really chosen the wrong page to rank in terms of Google-user click-through UX, then go ahead and lay out your canonical tag strategy
Personally I'd pick sections of the site and do it one part at a time in isolation, so you can minimise losses from disturbing Google and also measure your efforts more effectively / efficiently
If you no-index and robots-block URLs, it KILLS their SEO authority (dead) instead of moving it elsewhere (so steer clear of those except in extreme situations, they're really a last resort if you have the worst sprawling architecture imaginable). 301 redirects can shift ranking URLs and relevance, but don't pipe much authority. 301 redirects (if handled correctly) do all three things
What you have to ask yourself is, if you flat out deleted the pages you don't want to rank (obviously you wouldn't do this, as it would cause internal UX issues on your site) - if you did that, would Google:
A) Rank the other pages in their place from your site, which you want Google to rank
B) Give up on you and just rank similar pages (to the ones you don't want to rank) from other, competing sites instead
If you think (A) - take a measured, sectioned, small approach to canonical tag deployment and really test it before full roll-out. If you think (B), then you are admitting that there's something more Google-friendly one the pages you don't want to be ranking and just have to accept - no, your Google->conversion funnel will never be completely perfect like how you want it to be. You have to satisfy Google, not the other way around
Hope that helps!
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 Indexing
Hi We have roughly 8500 pages in our website. Google had indexed almost 6000 of them, but now suddenly I see that the pages indexed has gone to 45. Any possible explanations why this might be happening and what can be done for it. Thanks, Priyam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kh-priyam0 -
Best approach to rank for this keyword?
Hi i want to rank for the keyword "white sandals" on Google Australia. Currently, the top 5 ranking pages are not optimised and specific to white sandals. See screenshot: https://image.prntscr.com/image/WenSRHqTTFSqYNg2MHvH1A.png To rank for this keyword, would you create a page dedicated to white sandals even though it looks like it doesn't matter and you could rank the broader sandals page (not colour specific). Any recommendations? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | crazy4seo780 -
Google Search Console - Indexed Pages
I am performing a site audit and looking at the "Index Status Report" in GSC. This shows a total of 17 URLs have been indexed. However when I look at the Sitemap report in GSC it shows 9,000 pages indexed. Also, when I perform a site: search on Google I get 24,000 results. Can anyone help me to explain these anomalies?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | richdan0 -
Is this all that is needed for a 'canonical' tag?
Hello, I have a Joomla site. I have put in a plugin to make the page source show: eg. <link href="[http://www.ditalia.com.au/designer-fabrics-designer-fabric-italian-material-and-french-lace](view-source:http://www.ditalia.com.au/designer-fabrics-designer-fabric-italian-material-and-french-lace)" rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" /> Is this all that is need to tell the search engines to ignore the any other links or indexed pages with a url which is created automatically by the system before the SEF urls are initiated?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | infinart0 -
Canonical Tags?
I read that Google will "honor" these tags if your website has two url's with duplicate content. The duplicate content does not show up in my SEOmoz crawls report but they do in the search engines and many of "non authoritative links" that are generated from my search feature j(ugly url's with % ...not real user friendly) are ranking higher than the "good URL" links. So if I do the canonical tags I guess my higher ranking bad urls will drop. I even read that google might even completely overlook the links. I read somewhere that the best way to do this is with a 301 redirect...is that correct? I m ranking pretty good with my main keyword terms so I am afraid to make changes not knowing the effect. Any suggestions? Thanks, Boo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Boodreaux0 -
Canonical tag for similar page with different theme.
Our commerce system allows products to be shared across multiple categories/sections of our site. E.G. /boxes/blue-box.html /circles/blue-box.html This enables the product to show up in different areas of the site, but does not link to an evergreen URL. We are considering using the canonical tag to resolve this issue, but our question relates to the similarity of the pages. Each section folder (e.g. /boxes/ and /circles/) has a different header, left navigation and footer. They are similar in layout and some content is the same, but a good portion is different in the header and nav. Each category nav basically deals with deeper links in it's own category. The product title, image, description, etc. is all the same and makes up the bulk of the page. Is this a good candidate for the canonical tag or should we attempt to accommodate an evergreen URL?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | josh-att0 -
Will the Canonical tag fix this issue?
I recently joined promoz and I've been busy working through the issues raised brought to light during the crawls of our Magento site, www.unitedbmwonline.com. One of many issues were the 10,000+ Duplicate Page Titles which I believe are the result of not using Canonical tags when setting up the store. This is now corrected and hopefully I'll see a significant drop in this value after this next crawl. Am I correct in this assumption? Cheers, Steve
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SteveMaguire0 -
IP address being indexed by Google in addition to canonical domain.
Our site's IP address is being indexed in addition to the canonical www.example.com domain. As soon as it was flagged a 301 was implemented in the .htaccess file to redirect the IP address to the canonical. Does this usually occur? Is it detrimental to SEO? In my time in SEO I've never heard of this being an issue, or being part of a list of things to be checked. It sounds more like a server that wasn't configured correctly when hosting was set up? It didn't seem to be affecting the site at all, but is it more common and I've just never heard of it? 😛 Should it be something I'm usually looking for in future? Responses are greatly appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mikeimrie0