Canonical solution for query strings?
-
Greetings,
The Hotel company where I'm employed uses query strings in it's url's to track customers.
The query strings are integrated into our property management system, and they help identify who we need to pay commissions to, so they aren't going anywhere.
While I understand that session variables could have been a better solution, I sort of inherited this problem.
The issue I'm running into is that my Webmaster tools picks up these query strings as actual url's.
So for instance: www.url.com/index.php?P_SOURCE=WBFQ
Seems like a duplicate page of my root, and like wise for all my other pages that use our booking widget.
So, Is there a canonical solution to this issue? or would 301/302's be the only solution.
Also, we may have 10 different but specific query strings to put into our urls. Would the 301/302 approach cause any server issues for say 10 pages? So 10 pages x 10 access codes = a lot of redirects.
Thanks in advance,
Cyril
-
Short answer Yes.( as long as you have rel Canonical them back to the original page ). Google will drop the other pages over time
Things you can do here :
- Make sure your sitemap is not listing these extra urls
Thing I recommend you DONT do
- noIndex the dynamic pages - adding a noindex could tell google not to index those pages, but some one could link back to that page with P_SOURCE=WBFQ and the main page gets no benefit from that
- ask for manual removal ( because google does not like it when we ask them To get the right "version" of your site indexedhttp://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1269119 )
Hope that answers you questions
-
Sweet! Glad to know I can eliminate an option.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Thomas, will the query'd urls eventually drop off once google decides which version is best?
Thanks Saijo
-
Hi Nola504
301 redirect is certainly NOT your solution .. if you 301 redirect www.url.com/index.php?P_SOURCE=WBFQ to your homepage , that is the page visitors will be redirected to ( the ?P_SOURCE=WBFQ will be stripped off , I dont think that is what you want )
Rel canonical will tell Google , thay are all the same page with the same content and it will only show the main url that you nominate as the Canonical url ( in most cases , I have read about some study which claims at times google might decide for itself which is the better page )
Moreinfo http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
-
Thanks for the info Thomas,
I only added the canonical tag about a month ago, do you think over time those query links will eventually die off?
-
Adding in the canonical tag for each page should solve this problem. We use query strings as well for tracking sources and referrers. Canonicals are a solid solution for what you described.
But the fact that Google is finding that URL is another problem. If Google continues to find the URL after your canonical insertion then you may want to 301 redirect that particular string.
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
-
Google selecting incorrect URL as canonical: 'Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical'
Hi there, A number of our URLs are being de-indexed by Google. When looking into this using Google Search Console the same message is appearing on multiple pages across our sites: 'Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical' 'IndexingIndexing allowed? YesUser-declared canonical - https://www.mrisoftware.com/ie/products/real-estate-financial-software/Google-selected canonical - https://www.mrisoftware.com/uk/products/real-estate-financial-software/'Has anyone else experienced this problem?How can I get Google to select the correct, user-declared canoncial? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | nfrank0 -
Canonical vs Alternate for country based subdomain dupe content?
What's the correct method for tagging dupe content between country based subdomains? We have: mydomain.com // default, en-us www.mydomain.com // en-us uk.mydomain.com // uk, en-gb au.mydomain.com // australia, en-au eu.mydomain.com // europe, en-eu In the header of each we currently have rel="alternate" tags but we're still getting dupe content warnings in Moz for the "WWW" subdomain. Question 1) Are we headed in the right direction with using alternate? Or would it be better to use canonical since the languages are technically all English, just different regions. The content is pretty much the same minus currency and localization differences. Question 2) How can we solve the dupe content between WWW and the base domain, since the above isn't working. Thanks so much
Technical SEO | | lvdh11 -
Is there an percentage of duplicate content required before you should use a canonical tag?
Is there a percentage (approximate or exact) of duplicate content you should have before you use a canonical tag? Similarly how does Google handle canonical tags if the pages aren’t 100% duplicate? I've added some background and an example below; Nike Trainer model 1 – has an overview page that also links to a sub-page about cushioning, one about Gore-Tex and one about breathability. Nike Trainer model 2,3,4,5 – have an overview page that also links to sub-pages page about cushioning , Gore-Tex and breathability. In each of the sub-pages the URL is a child of the parent so a distinct page from each other e.g. /nike-trainer/model-1/gore-tex /nike-trainer/model-2/gore-tex. There is some differences in material composition, some different images and of course the product name is referred multiple times. This makes the page in the region of 80% unique.
Technical SEO | | punchseo0 -
Canonical link tag for https - any disadvantages for SEO?
Hi Mozzers, We have a website that has both http as well as https indexed. I proposed the solution of implementing a canonical link tag on all pages (including the login/secure ones). Any disadvantages I could expect? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | DeptAgency0 -
Is it appropriate to use canonical for a yearly post with similar content?
I've begun writing an annual review of local business directories. Post from 2012 is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-in-2012/ New 2014 post is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-2014/ Is this appropriate use? Next year the post will be similar, but different metrics reported and slightly different review. Side note: For some reason the post hasn't been indexed by Google yet. Usually new posts are indexed as soon as they are shared on social media.
Technical SEO | | ServiceCrowd_AU0 -
Rel Canonical errors after seomoz crawling
Hi to all, I can not find which are the errors in my web pages with the tag cannonical ref. I have to many errors over 500 after seomoz crawling my domain and I don't know how to fix it. I share my URL for root page: http://www.vour.gr My rel canonical tag for this page is: http://www.vour.gr"/> Can anyone help me why i get error for this page? Many thanks.
Technical SEO | | edreamis0 -
Two different canonical tags on one page
Due to an error, some of my pages now have two canonical tags on them. One is correct and the other goes to a nonsense URL (404 page). I know I should ideally remove the incorrect ones, but it's a big manual job. Are they doing any harm? Can I just leave them there and let Google figure it out? The correct ones are higher up in the code. Will this make a difference? Any help appreciated.
Technical SEO | | ShearingsGroup0 -
Wordpress Canonical Problem
I'm using wordpress for my website but m unable to implement Canonical tag property for pages under the same category, Like for matt's blog: The Tag is same .. for all pages under that category: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/type/googleseo/ & http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/type/googleseo/page/2/ is it some hack or some plugin ? please suggest! thanks
Technical SEO | | AnkitRawat0