Welcome to the Q&A Forum

LOL thanks!

Yes I understand that.  It is just a lot more work for us to do with our site map!  Thanks for your advice.

I see. but the rel="canonical" pages are good page.  I get the broken links and all that part but I guess i do not agree with rel="canonical" as much.  I can see their standpoint.  Do you do a lot with your site map and assign the different values to different pages?

PDF seem to not rank as well as other normal webpages.  They still rank do not get me wrong, we have over 100 pdf pages that get traffic for us. The main version is really up to you, what do you want to show in the search results.  I think it would be easier to rank for a normal webpage though.  If you are doing a rel="canonical"  it will pass most of the link juice, not all but most.

PDF seem to not rank as well as other normal webpages.  They still rank do not get me wrong, we have over 100 pdf pages that get traffic for us. The main version is really up to you, what do you want to show in the search results.  I think it would be easier to rank for a normal webpage though.  If you are doing a rel="canonical"  it will pass most of the link juice, not all but most.

Indicate the canonical version of a URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header. Addingrel="canonical" to the head section of a page is useful for HTML content, but it can't be used for PDFs and other file types indexed by Google Web Search. In these cases you can indicate a canonical URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header, like this (note that to use this option, you'll need to be able to configure your server):

Link: <http: www.example.com="" downloads="" white-paper.pdf="">; rel="canonical"</http:> 

Google currently supports these link header elements for Web Search only.

You can read more her http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

Indicate the canonical version of a URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header. Addingrel="canonical" to the head section of a page is useful for HTML content, but it can't be used for PDFs and other file types indexed by Google Web Search. In these cases you can indicate a canonical URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header, like this (note that to use this option, you'll need to be able to configure your server):

Link: <http: www.example.com="" downloads="" white-paper.pdf="">; rel="canonical"</http:> 

Google currently supports these link header elements for Web Search only.

You can read more her http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

Back in March 2011 this conversation happened.

Rand:    You don't want rel=canonicals.

Duane:    Only end state URL. That's the only thing I want in a sitemap.xml. We have a very tight threshold on how clean your sitemap needs to be. When people are learning about how to build sitemaps, it's really critical that they understand that this isn't something that you do once and forget about. This is an ongoing maintenance item, and it has a big impact on how Bing views your website. What we want is end state URLs and we want hyper-clean. We want only a couple of percentage points of error.

Is this the same with Google?

But why would they rank the page lower than the home page was ranked if they think it is more relevant?  And the linking is something that needs to be worked on.  Up to this point there has not been much done.  We are doing more social now though and that should help a little.

Yes we know we need to fix that, it is just a really big project!

Right now our site is using ajax and we need to change it so all 200+ products will get crawled not just the first 52 on page first page.  We are looking at doing the rel=next/ rel=previous or doing it so we have a link going to the View all product page.  Or maybe doing the rel=next/ previous and using the canonical to point to the view all etc.  I have read http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1663744 and http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html about  it.

Now we are trying to figure out what is the best option.  Thought. Here is our site. http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/t/49/-/181/750/Motorcycle-Tires-All  Also if we do not do the rel=next just make the view all items as a link that google can crawl is there a way to still have our current url be the one for view all items but only show 52 item unless the click view all items and not have it look like cloaking?

Hope this made sense.

Indicate the canonical version of a URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header. Addingrel="canonical" to the head section of a page is useful for HTML content, but it can't be used for PDFs and other file types indexed by Google Web Search. In these cases you can indicate a canonical URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header, like this (note that to use this option, you'll need to be able to configure your server):

Link: <http: www.example.com="" downloads="" white-paper.pdf="">; rel="canonical"</http:> 

Google currently supports these link header elements for Web Search only.

You can read more her http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

Indicate the canonical version of a URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header. Addingrel="canonical" to the head section of a page is useful for HTML content, but it can't be used for PDFs and other file types indexed by Google Web Search. In these cases you can indicate a canonical URL by responding with the Link rel="canonical" HTTP header, like this (note that to use this option, you'll need to be able to configure your server):

Link: <http: www.example.com="" downloads="" white-paper.pdf="">; rel="canonical"</http:> 

Google currently supports these link header elements for Web Search only.

You can read more her http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

PDF seem to not rank as well as other normal webpages.  They still rank do not get me wrong, we have over 100 pdf pages that get traffic for us. The main version is really up to you, what do you want to show in the search results.  I think it would be easier to rank for a normal webpage though.  If you are doing a rel="canonical"  it will pass most of the link juice, not all but most.