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
-
Should you aim for Google to use your meta tags?
When updating meta titles and descriptions, I'm taking note of whether Google is displaying the set tag or changing it to copy from the page. Does this affect the ranking position if Google is having to change the tag? How much should I worry if Google is choosing to change every other page? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Omar_aw0 -
Should you do on-page optimization for a page with rel=canonical tag?
If you ad a rel=canonical tag to a page, should you still optimize that page? I'm talking meta description, page title, etc.
On-Page Optimization | | marynau0 -
Rel="Canonical"
Hi!, We´ve just launched a new website and on this web we are using a lot Call to Actions on every page of the web and all of this CTA`s goes to the same Landing Page. (Ej: http://www.landing page.com) The problem comes when Google says this Landing Page is duplicate content because we are using some parameters like, for instance, http://www.landing page.com/?fuente=Soporteensalesforce So now we have just 1 Landing Page but Google sees 13 pages, because of this parameters and Moz alerted me that Google is seeing it as duplicate content. Yesterday I put this on the head of the only Landing Page we have so Google can see it in the proper way, as just one landing, but I don´t know if it is enough or should I do anything else? What I put on the Head: Hope someone can help me about this because I´ve tried to find a solution and this is the only thing that came up to me, and don´t know if it´s the right thing. Thanks for your time!
On-Page Optimization | | Manuel_LeadClic0 -
Advantage of using LocalBusiness rich snippets?
I am working on a website that has company profile pages. What are the advantages of using LocalBusiness rich snippets for profiles?
On-Page Optimization | | calf0 -
Should I be using the town or city in url with my keyword or keyphrase?
should I be using the town or city in url with my keyword or keyphrase? So lets say I'm trying to rank for butchers in home town should i put the town in the url as well so www.website.com/butchers-in-mytown is that bad? Or would it be best to just put www.website.com/butchers?
On-Page Optimization | | genkee0 -
Can I use Same Keyword for Multi pages Title Tags?
Hello All, I am working on client website and currently they are targeting One Keywords for multi pages. As I have search with Allintitle: Search query and Google display around 37 pages of website which carry same keyword in "Title Tags". I have told to client to change the "Title Tags" but they want that keyword for all relevant pages. So I want to know is that harm in Search Engine Ranking? Note: They have not done the link building activities for multi pages with same Keyword, they are using only in "Title Tags" only
On-Page Optimization | | jemindesai0 -
Is reported duplication on the pages or their canonical pages?
There are several sections getting flagged for duplication on one of our sites: http://mysite.com/section-1/?something=X&confirmed=true
On-Page Optimization | | Safelincs
http://mysite.com/section-2/?something=X&confirmed=true
http://mysite.com/section-3/?something=X&confirmed=true Each of the above are showing as having duplicates of the other sections. Indeed, these pages are exactly the same (it's just an SMS confirmation page you enter your code in), however, they all have canonical links back to the section (without the query string), i.e. section-1, section-2 and section-3 respectively. These three sections have unique content and aren't flagged up for duplications themselves, so my questions are: Are the pages with the query strings the duplicates, and if so why are the canonical links being ignored? or Are the canonical pages without the query strings the duplicates, and if so why don't they appear as URLs in their own right in the duplicate content report? I am guessing it's the former, but I can't figure out why it would ignore the canonical links. Any ideas? Thanks0 -
Canonical home page
I have a site that shows duplicate page content for: www.autoserviceexpertsonline and www.autoserviceexpertsonline/index.html When looking at the files using the cms (intuit) file manager, I only see the /index.html version. I added the Caononical tag referencing/pointing to both the domain name only and then changed to .../index.html No matter how I code this, the seomoz On-Site SEO Grader still has a problem with it. Is this a bug with the Grading program or am I doing something wrong? Please help as I think this is causing me problems with Google and I'd like to get this right for future sites I will be working on. Thanks, Bill
On-Page Optimization | | Marvo0