Google-selected canonical makes no sense
-
Howdy, fellow mozzers,
We have added canonical URL to this page - https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/houston-tx/margot-schurig-8715369/share, pointing to https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/houston-tx/margot-schurig-8715369
When I check in Google search console, there are no issues reported with that page, and Google does say that it was able to properly read the canonical URL.
Yet, it still chooses the page itself as canonical. This doesn't make sense to me. (Here is the link to the screenshot: https://dmitrii-regexseo.tinytake.com/tt/MzU0Mjc0M18xMDY2MTc4Ng)
Has anyone dealt with this type of issue, and were you able to resolve it?
-
Thanks for the reply.
Yeah, that makes sense, and that was my recommendation to add noindexing. I'm just curious about how and why Google decided that our canonical is not worth it
-
Oh wow that's very insensitive of Google! What you have to understand is that, most online content exists to sell products, to drive revenue and business - to a large degree that's how Google evaluates web-pages (the lens that it sees through)
If you page were commercial in nature (which obviously it is not) then Google would be making a semi logical decision. They're trying to skip users past the 'waffle and blurb' to the 'action point' where the user performs their only meaningful interaction with the page (in this case, a contact form)
For your site this is entirely inappropriate. To be honest you could Meta no-index and / or robots.txt block the "/share" (contact form) URL - to discourage Google from crawling and indexing it. Robots.txt controls crawling (less relevant), Meta no-index controls indexation. Note that like the canonical tag, these are both still 'directives' which Google doesn't 'have' to obey (fundamentally). Don't deploy both at once, as if you deploy robots.txt first (thus stopping Google from crawling the URL) - Google won't be able to crawl and 'find' the Meta no-index directive
Remember: telling Google not to crawl one URL, doesn't necessarily mean that your preferred URL will rank in its place
Your other option is to re-code the site, so that the contact form pops out in a content-box (or slider). That way, the contact from will share the same URL as the main page - thus Google will have to rank them both simultaneously (as it will have no choice)
Sorry that you have encountered such a difficult issue, hope my advice helps somewhat
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
-
Will google merge structured data from two pages if they have the same canonical?
Will google merge structured data from two pages if they have the same canonical? The crawler should be able to get to the tab through an ahref. The tab in question is "Cast & Crew." Thank you in advance for any insight! szmOmj8.jpg uM8qUfi.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | catbur0 -
Rel Canonical attribute order
So the position of the attribute effect the rel canonical tags' ability to function? is the way I see it across multiple documents and websites. Having a discussion with someone in the office and there is a website with it set up as: Will that cause any problems? The website is inquestion still has both pages indexed within Google using the SITE:domain.com/product as well as SITE:domain.com/category/product
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jasondexter0 -
Will Google View Using Google Translate As Duplicate?
If I have a page in English, which exist on 100 other websites, we have a case where my website has duplicate content. What if I use Google Translate to translate the page from English to Japanese, as the only website doing this translation will my page get credit for producing original content? Or, will Google view my page as duplicate content, because Google can tell it is translated from an original English page, which runs on 100+ different websites, since Google Translate is Google's own software?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Appropriate use of rel canonical
Hey Guys,I'm a bit stuck. My on-page grade indicated the following two issues and I need to find how how to fix both issues.If you have a solution, could you please let me know how to address these issues? It's all a bit intimidating at the moment!!Thank you so much..****************************************************************************************************************************************Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL. Recommendation: We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply. No More Than One Canonical URL Tag The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag. Recommendation: Remove all but a single canonical URL tag
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StoryScout1 -
How to Block Google Preview?
Hi, Our site is very good for Javascript-On users, however many pages are loaded via AJAX and are inaccessible with JS-off. I'm looking to make this content available with JS-off so Search Engines can access them, however we don't have the Dev time to make them 'pretty' for JS-off users. The idea is to make them accessible with JS-off, but when requested by a user with JS-on the user is forwarded to the 'pretty' AJAX version. The content (text, images, links, videos etc) is exactly the same but it's an enormous amount of effort to make the JS-off version 'pretty' and I can't justify the development time to do this. The problem is that Googlebot will index this page and show a preview of the ugly JS-off page in the preview on their results - which isn't good for the brand. Is there a way or meta code that can be used to stop the preview but still have it cached? My current options are to use the meta noarchive or "Cache-Control" content="no-cache" to ask Google to stop caching the page completely, but wanted to know if there was a better way of doing this? Any ideas guys and girls? Thanks FashionLux
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FashionLux0 -
Google plus
"Google+ members, and to a lesser extent others who are signed into Google, will be able to search against both the broader web and their own Google+ social graph. That’s right; Google+ circles, photos, posts and more will be integrated into search in ways other social platforms can only dream about." What is meant by " and to a lesser extent others who are signed into Google" ? Does it mean that non-google plus members won't be able to view Google+photos, posts ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Google Places Duplicate Listings
Hey Mozzers- I know the basic process for handling duplicate listings, but I just want to make sure and ask because this one is a little sensitive. I have a client with a claimed and verified listings page, which is here: http://maps.google.com/maps/place?q=chambers+and+associates&hl=en&cid=9065936543314453461 There is also another listing (which I have not claimed yet) here: http://maps.google.com/maps/place?q=dr.+george+chambers&hl=en&cid=14758636806656154330 The first listing has 0 reviews, where the 2nd unverified listing has 12 fantastic 5 star reviews. We can all agree that if I can get these two listings to merge, his general listing will perform much better than it already is (the first listing has about 200 actions per months). So, what is the best way to merge these two without losing any reviews and without suspending my places account? Thanks in advance! Ian
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | itrogers0 -
Random Google?
In 2008 we performed an experiment which showed some seemingly random behaviour by Google (indexation, caching, pagerank distributiuon). Today I put the results together and analysed the data we had and got some strange results which hint at a possibility that Google purposely throws in a normal behaviour deviation here and there. Do you think Google randomises its algorithm to prevent reverse engineering and enable chance discoveries or is it all a big load balancing act which produces quasi-random behaviour?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Dan-Petrovic0