How to deal with rel=canonical when using POST parameters
-
Hi there,
I currently have a number of URLs throughout my site of the form:This sends the user through to a page showing hotels near the O2 Academy Islington. Once the page loads, my code looks at the parameters specified in the # part of the URL, and uses them to fill in a form, before submitting the form as a POST. This basically reloads the page, but checks the availability of the hotels first, and therefore returns slightly different content to the "canonical" version of this page (which simply lists the hotels before any availability checks done).
Until now, I've marked the page that has had availability checks as noindex,follow. But because the form was submitted with POST parameters, the URL looks exactly like the canonical one.
So the two URLs are identical, but due to POST parameters, the content is slightly different. Does that make sense?
My question is, should both versions of this page be marked as index,follow?
Thanks
Mike -
Handling rel=canonical with POST parameters indeed demands careful handling. Distinguishing content variations and marking the primary version, like showcasing hotels without availability checks, as canonical aligns with SEO principles, ensuring search engines prioritize the main version for enhanced search performance. It's like optimizing web content as intricate as selecting the perfect design from a Mardi Gras PNG collection for a vibrant online presence.
-
waiting a good reply and i also facing this issue. checking my website
-
waiting a good reply and i also facing this issue. checking my website
-
waiting a good reply and i also facing this issue. checking my website
-
@mjk26 Handling rel=canonical with POST parameters requires careful consideration. Despite identical URLs, the content differs due to the POST parameters. It's wise to mark both versions as index,follow, given Google's focus on user signals. For clarity, let's consider an example: Say, you have a page showcasing hotels near Premier Inn London Angel. One version lists hotels, while the other checks hotel availability before listing. Mark the version without availability checks as canonical to signify its primary content. This ensures search engines prioritize the main version while still acknowledging the alternate content. This approach aligns with SEO principles and enhances search performance.
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
-
Does putting blog post on the root put you at a disadvantage?
Do you think putting blog posts on the root poses a disadvantage? Root: exmple.com/post-name/ Folder: example.com/blog/post-name
On-Page Optimization | | eyeflow0 -
Dealing with spelling variations
Hi, my site is a directory for restaurants seen on TV. The two most popular shows, Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives and Man v. Food often are searched for by a number of different variations. Diners DriveIns Dives, Diners, Drive Ins Dives, Man v Food, man versus food, etc. Should my site consistently use a single variation (the official one) or intentionally use multiple variations to cover various keywords? I'm pretty sure the answer is a single variation but figured it was worth asking.
On-Page Optimization | | tvfoodmaps1 -
Using Transcription Service For Videos - Have Question Around Search and Spiders
Hi All, So I have put together a weekly video series on security topics. I have read an SEOmoz post around how you can boost SEO by adding the transcription to the page, which makes perfectly good sense. My question is, can I include the first couple of paragraphs and then have a "read the full transcription" so when the user clicks, the rest of the content appears? Do the search engine spiders only crawl the first two paragraphs in this instance or do they crawl the whole thing even though the entire content is not on the page? I dont mind making the page longer and including the entire transcription if it is easier for SEO but if there is no difference, than I think the first option would be the best user experience. Thanks for the help Pat
On-Page Optimization | | PatBausemer0 -
Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.
Please clarify: In the page optimization tool, seomoz recommends using the canonical url tag on the unique page itself. Is it the same canonical url tag used when want juice to go to the original page? Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today. Please give example.
On-Page Optimization | | AllIsWell0 -
Dealing with updating blog posts
I run a travel and culture blog which means that I write about a lot of upcoming events which recur each year. Usually I title (and slug) the page with the event name and date. When it comes to update the article the next year, sometimes it's as little as changing the date, other times more has changed and it needs to be substantially re-written. Until now, what I've done is update the title, content, and then re-posted (sometimes altering the slug where it's needed to be done). Sometimes it works fine and Google keeps me ranking well, but other times the changes dont get such a great response. I have these options (as far as I can see). Which do you think is best? 1. To create a new article each year and put a message at the start of the previous one to say, click here to read about the 2012 event 2. To continue what I'm doing updating, changing the slug, and re-posting (ie changing the date). 3. To write a new article and insert a 301 redirect. I need to make sure the article appears as a new article in my RSS feed and also on the homepage. Look forward to your ideas! Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | ben10000 -
Is rel=canonical used only for duplicate content
Can the rel-canonical be used to tell the search engines which page is "preferred" when there are similar pages? For instance, I have an internal page that Google is showing on the first page of the SERPs that I would prefer the home page be ranked for. Both the home and internal page have been optimized for the same keyword. What is interesting is that the internal page has very few backlinks compared to the home page but Google seems to favor it since the keyword is in the URL. I am afraid a 301 will drop us from the first page of the SERPs.
On-Page Optimization | | surveygizmo0 -
Is it ok to use encoded special characters in meta titles?
I've read blog posts stating that encoding special characters in title tags is both ok and not ok. Any definitive answer out there? Do the extra characters from adding encoding count towards the total number of characters that Google displays in SERPs? Or do they just count as one character?
On-Page Optimization | | BostonWright0 -
See screenshot: Is this an example of Canonical issue or am I making an error in judgement?
Hi Mozzers. Please see the constructed screen grab from Open site explorer. Do I have canonical Errors with this client? Thanks! jX7X6.jpg
On-Page Optimization | | Giggy0
