If you only want your home page to rank, can you use rel="canonical" on all your other pages?
-
If you have a lot of pages with 1 or 2 inbound links, what would be the effect of using rel="canonical" to point all those pages to the home page? Would it boost the rankings of the home page?
As I understand it, your long-tail keyword traffic would start landing on the home page instead of finding what they were looking for. That would be bad, but might be worth it.
-
Here's a post from Dr. Pete about doing just that. He lost traffic, he lost indexed pages, and had to beg to Google for a reinclusion request even after he fixed things back again. You don't want to do it.
-
rel canonical is for letting search engines know that a page on your site has duplicate content of another page. However, I doubt all the pages on your site are duplicates of your home page, so the most likely outcome is that the search engines would ignore your rel canonical tags and just index the pages as normal if they're not similar enough.
This is not really the intent of the tag, and to me it sounds like it falls close to the black-hat side of things. If you really want the rankings from those pages, and don't care about them, you can 301 redirect them to your home page like Joshua suggested.
Here's the SEOMoz post from about a year ago about rel canonical. It also links to some good resources: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not
-
Lucas,
If you did something like that you would be negatively affecting how many pages that would show up for your site in Google. If you rel="canonical" all your internal pages to the homepage you are in effect telling Google that all of your other pages are duplicate content and that the home page is the only piece of original content on your site and Google will take that out of the listing. If you weren't going to use those low linked to internal pages you could do a 301 redirect those pages to the homepage. By doing that the majority of link juice from those pages would flow to the homepage. The effect could be minimal depending on the quality of the links pointing at those internal pages being redirected, but if they were high quality links then it could make an impact. It will probably take a couple good weeks for Google to make the adjustments.
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
-
Rel Canonical for Exact Same Copy?
I've read about using rel canonical tags for product pages like "blue shorts" vs "red shorts" but if I have two pages with the exact same copy - different URL's - but same copy, can I use a rel canonical tag and be okay for duplicate content purposes? (There is is reason the page is exactly the same, at least for the time being, so I'm just focusing on how not to be get penalized as opposed to rewriting it at the moment). Thanks, Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Is this an ideal rel=canonical situation?
Hey Moz community, Thanks for taking time to answer my question. I'm working directly with a hospital that has several locations across the country. They've copied the same content over to each of their websites. Could I point the search engines back to a singular location (URL) using the rel=canonical tag? In addition, does the rel=canonical tag affect the search engine rankings of the URLs (about 13 of them) that use the rel=canonical tag? If I'm on track, is there an ideal URL (location) to decide has the original content? This is actually the first time I've ever needed to use rel=canonical (if applicable). Thanks so much. Cole
Technical SEO | | ColeLusby0 -
Trailing Slashes on Home Pages
I do not think I have a problem here, but a second opinion would be welcomed... I have a site which has a the rel=canonical tag with the trailing slash displayed. ie www.example.com/ The sitemap has it without the trailing slash. www.example.com Google has it's cached copy with the trailing slash but the browser displays it without. I want to say it's perfectly fine (for the home page) as I tend to think they are treated (with/without trailing slashes) as the same canonical URL.
Technical SEO | | eventurerob0 -
Can too many pages hurt crawling and ranking?
Hi, I work for local yellow pages in Belgium, over the last months we introduced a succesfull technique to boost SEO traffic: we have created over 150k of new pages, all targeting specific keywords and all containing unique content, a site architecture to enable google to find these pages through crawling, xml sitemaps, .... All signs (traffic, indexation of xml sitemaps, rankings, ...) are positive. So far so good. We are able to quickly build more unique pages, and I wonder how google will react to this type of "large scale operation": can it hurt crawling and ranking if google notices big volumes of content (unique content)? Please advice
Technical SEO | | TruvoDirectories0 -
Why are these pages duplicates when canonical is defined?
The SEOmoz reports indicate that the following pages are duplicates even though the canonical tag has been added. http://www.designquotes.com.au/dq/web/get-quotes/quotes http://www.designquotes.com.au/dq/web/get-quotes/brief Is this normal?
Technical SEO | | designquotes0 -
Can I "Run Macros" on my own?
I talked to the SEO company I am using and trying to get an understanding of what it is they are doing for me. They told me that one of the most important things they are doing is running macros. Is this something I could learn to do myself? What does it mean? How do I do it? How long does it take?? I have recently been educating myself on SEO and coded my website with metadata titles and descriptions. Is running macros something I can do on my own too? I guess I'd also just like to know what it is.
Technical SEO | | CapitolShine0 -
Non-Canonical Pages still Indexed. Is this normal?
I have a website that contains some products and the old structure of the URL's was definitely not optimal for SEO purposes. So I created new SEO friendly URL's on my site and decided that I would use the canonical tags to transfer all the weight of the old URL's to the New URL's and ensure that the old ones would not show up in the SERP's. Problem is this has not quite worked. I implemented the canonical tags about a month ago but I am still seeing the old URL's indexed in Google and I am noticing that the cache date of these pages was only about a week ago. This leads me to believe that the spiders have been to the pages and seen the new canonical tags but are not following them. Is this normal behavior and if so, can somebody explain to me why? I know I could have just 301 redirected these old URL's to the new ones but the process I would need to go through to have that done is much more of a battle than to just add the canonical tags and I felt that the canonical tags would have done the job. Needless to say the client is not too happy right now and insists that I should have just used the 301's. In this case the client appears to be correct but I do not quite understand why my canonical tags did not work. Examples Below- Old Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/productid.3254235 New Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name Canonical tag on both pages: rel="canonical" href="http://www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name"/> Thanks guys for the help on this.
Technical SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt0 -
How can I prevent duplicate content between www.page.com/ and www.page.com
SEOMoz's recent crawl showed me that I had an error for duplicate content and duplicate page titles. This is a problem because it found the same page twice because of a '/' on the end of one url. e.g. www.page.com/ vs. www.page.com My question is do I need to be concerned about this. And is there anything I should put in my htaccess file to prevent this happening. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | onlineexpression
Karl0