Which is best of narrow by search URLs? Canonical or NOINDEX
-
I have set canonical to all narrow by search URLs. I think, it's not working well. You can get more idea by following URLs.
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?material_search=1328
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?finish_search=146
These kind of page have canonical tag which is pointing to following one.
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps
Because, it's actual page which I want to out rank.
But, all narrow by search URLs have very different products compare to base URLs. So, How can we say it duplicate one?
Which is best solution for it. Canonical or NOINDEX it by Robots?
-
It can be frustrating, but definitely give any change time to work (unless it seems like it's actually harming you). It can take Google a long time to re-index/re-cache deep pages, even if they visit your site daily.
-
Dr. Peter J. Meyers
After long discussion, I can conclude that, I have to go with NOINDEX. Let's see what happen in next 4 months. Then, I will re-evaluate it for better performance. As per your suggestion, it's quite tricky to change tactics on weekly bases and it may not help us more in same direction. Thanks for your valuable time on my question and prompt reply on each question.
-
That's pretty much typical search pagination. You can use NOINDEX on pages 2+, but Google currently recommends the rel=prev/next tags:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
The new tags seems to be working better over the past few months, but they can be tricky to implement, as they're different for every page (you have to create them dynamically). Historically, I've found that NOINDEX works pretty well for search pagination.
In this particular case, you wouldn't want to use canonical tags. Pagination is a bit unique. Unfortunately, even within internal search, different aspects can require different tags. It gets tricky fast these days.
-
Dr. Peter J. Meyers
Sorry, I'm a bit confused, because these sample URLs/situations seem very different from the ones you originally asked about.
I have changed URL structure in entire website and make it more SEO friendly.
but if your index exploded and you've got hundreds or thousands of thin pages, it may be worth doing in the short-term.
I have attached Index Status for Vista Stores screenshot to know more about it.
There are 12,000 product pages + 100 categories + 30 blog posts + 20 static pages + 1 home page = 12,151 pages are important for me and want to index and rank well.
Now, rest of pages are not duplicate ~ not near duplicate or true duplicate.
Just have a look at following pages.
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/p-2
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/p-3
Why should I set canonical tag pointing to base URL as follow. Because, page 2 and 3 does not contain any single product which is available on base page. So, Can we calculate as a duplicate? OR Will Google count as duplicate.
-
Sorry, I'm a bit confused, because these sample URLs/situations seem very different from the ones you originally asked about. Search filters vs. sorts vs. pagination all have potentially different solutions and implementing them on a large e-commerce site is very tricky.
Typically, rel=prev/next is better for pagination. For filters, you can use rel-canonical or NOINDEX, but it's often better to try to block some parameters from being crawled at all.
In the examples, you just gave, I suspect that rel-canonical may not have worked properly because Google saw the pages as being too differently. Honestly, though, for deep pages like this, it can also just come down to time. Sometimes, it takes Google quite a while to honor the tags.
There's no harm in trying NOINDEX, but I'd give it time. Don't change tactics every couple of weeks, or you could end up with even more mess.
A canonicalization strategy that covers your entire site is well beyond the scope of Q&A, I'm afraid. It's very tricky on large sites, and I've often found that the results have to be measured and strategies adjusted as you go. You can do it by the book and still have Google ignore it. It depends a lot on your internal architecture and link structure.
Ideally, control the crawl structure first. The less of these duplicates that are available for Google to crawl, the better. Canonical is often effective, but it's also a band-aid in situations like these. NOINDEX sometimes works better, but it's also a patch, too often.
You could use NOINDEX in concert with blocking some of the parameters in Google Webmaster Tools. I don't think it's an ideal long-term solution, but if your index exploded and you've got hundreds or thousands of thin pages, it may be worth doing in the short-term.
-
Dr. Peter J. Meyers
I'm coming back on this question after 5 months. I have implemented Canonical tag to following pages. But, It did not work well and indexed too many duplicate content.
Narrow by search:
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/manufacturer-boss
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/manufacturer-boss/material-search-caressoftSorting:http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/dir-desc/order-positionNumber of products:http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/dir-desc/limit-100/order-positionPagination:http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/dir-desc/limit-100/order-position/p-4Right now, I have removed Canonical tag to entire website and implement NOINDEX Follow meta robots.I am really confuse between Canonical and NOINDEX Follow.Can you give me exact solution for my current CMS structure?
-
I generally agree with Alan (although I think NOINDEX, FOLLOW is ok, since these pages are unlikely to have external/inbound links), but there's no perfect solution for these types of pages. They aren't exact duplicates, but they may look low value to search. Given our current tools, canonical may be your best choice.
If you're talking about a couple-dozen pages, it's no big deal, and you could leave them alone. If the different filters are spinning out 100s of variants, then I would control them somehow.
-
Canonical, dont use noindex in robots,
By using no index by robotes, you lose all the link juice of any link pointing to the no-indexed pages.
If the pages are not duplicates, then dont do anything, let them all rank.
-
I was reading a lot about this, and the better solution is using more than one method.
There is a post in SEO MOZ Blog from Lindsay that I think will answer your question: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/robot-access-indexation-restriction-techniques-avoiding-conflicts
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 I use canonicals? Best practice?
Hi there, I've been working on a pretty dated site. The product pages have tabs that separate the product information, e.g., a tab for specifications, a tab for system essentials, an overview tab that is actually just a copy of the product page. Each tab is actually a link to a completely separate page, so product/main-page is split into product/main-page/specs, product/main-page/resources, etc. Wondering if canonicals would be appropriate in this situation? The information isn't necessarily duplicate (except for the overview tabs) but with each tab as a separate page, I would imagine that's diluting the value of the main page? The information all belongs to the main page, shouldn't it be saying "I'm a version of the main page"?
Technical SEO | | anneoaks0 -
Noindex meta tag
Hi When following Webmaster Tools/Optimization/HTML Improvements it says that we have duplicate title tags and duplicate meta descriptions for hundreds of pages, As corrective action we have added to those pages and also changed title tags to make sure that they are different but still Webmaster keeps reporting that the duplication exist. Is it possible that google bot doesn't see our noindex code while crawling? By the way our seomoz report says that there is no duplicate title tag or meta description on our site google has crawled our site today and we received our report from seomoz today thanks
Technical SEO | | iskq0 -
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
Showing duplicate content when I have canonical url set, why?
Just inspecting my sites report and I see that I have a lot of duplicate content issues, not sure why these two pages here http://www.thecheapplace.com/wholesale-products/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch http://www.thecheapplace.com/wholesale-products/small-wholesale-patches-1/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch are showing as duplicate content when both pages have a clearly defined canonical url of http://www.thecheapplace.com/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch Any answer would be appreciated, thank you
Technical SEO | | erhansimavi0 -
Search result pages - noindex but auto follow?
Hi guys, I don't index my search pages, and currently my pages are tagged name="robots" content="noindex"> Do I need to specify follow or will it automatically be done? Thanks Cyto
Technical SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
Canonical URL Issue
Hi Everyone, I'm fairly new here and I've been browsing around for a good answer for an issue that is driving me nuts here. I tried to put the canonical url for my website and on the first 5 or 6 pages I added the following script SEOMoz reported that there was a problem with it. I spoke to another friend and he said that it looks like it's right and there is nothing wrong but still I get the same error. For the URL http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html I used the following: <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html" /> Is there anything wrong with it? Many thanks in advance for the attention to my question.. 🙂 Alex
Technical SEO | | influxmedia0 -
I'm redesigning a website which will have a new URL format. What's the best way to redirect all the old URLs to the new ones? Is there an automated, fast way to do this?
For example, the new URL will be: https://oregonoptimalhealth.com/about_us.html while the old one's were like this: http://www.oregonoptimalhealth.com/home/ooh/smartlist_1/services.html I have redirect almost 100 old pages to the correct new page. What's the best and easiest way to do this?
Technical SEO | | PolarisMarketing0 -
REL Canonical Error
In my crawl diagnostics it showing a Rel=Canonical error on almost every page. I'm using wordpress. Is there a default wordpress problem that would cause this?
Technical SEO | | mmaes0