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
-
Canonical Page Question
Hi, I have a question relation to Canonical pages That i need clearing up. I am not sure that my bigcommere website is correctly configured and just wanted clarification from someone in the know. Take this page for example https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/ Canonical link is https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/ The Rel="next" link is https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?sort=bestselling&page=2 and this page has a canonical tag as rel='canonical' href='https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?page=2' /> Is this correct as above and working as it should or should the canonical tag for the second (pagination page) https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?page=2 in our source code be saying rel='canonical' href='https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/' />
Technical SEO | | oceanstorm0 -
Canonical URL on frontpage
I have a site where the CMS system have added a canonical URL on my frontpage, pointing to a subpage on my site. Something like on my domain root.Google is still showing MyDomain.com as the result in the search engines which is good, but can't this approach hurt my ranking? I mean it's basically telling google that my frontpage content is located far down the hierarki, instead of my domain root, which of course have the most authority.
Technical SEO | | EdmondHong87
Something seems to indicate that this could very well be the case, as we lost several placements after moving to this new CMS system a few months ago.0 -
Keywords, when are you overdoing it in the URL?
Hi guys, I'm auditing a site covering compensation for cancer. Keywords could include: Undiagnosed cancer 20 cancer compensation 10 undiagnosed cancer symptoms 10 cancer misdiagnosis claims 20 cancer claims 10 misdiagnosis of cancer 50 cancer misdiagnosis 70 So, when structuring the URL for the category, this was previously selected: www.site.co.uk/medical-negligence/cancer-misdiagnosis Although sub-pages appear like this: www.site.co.uk/medical-negligence/cancer-misdiagnosis/breast-cancer-misdiagnosis-claim/ 'Cancer misdiagnosis' as a keyword attracts the most traffic, but if we're using it on sub-pages - is there a need to include it twice on all sub-page URLs? With that in mind, would it be better to follow the following format? www.site.co.uk/medical-negligence/cancer-compensation www.site.co.uk/medical-negligence/cancer-compensation/breast-cancer-misdiagnosis-claim/ Or is there a better way to structure this? Thanks in advance guys!
Technical SEO | | Muhammad-Isap0 -
404 Best Practices
Hello All, So about 2 months ago, there was a massive spike in the number of crawl errors on my site according to Google Webmaster tools. I handled this by sending my webmaster a list of the broken pages with working pages that they should 301 redirect to. Admittedly, when I looked back a couple weeks later, the number had gone down only slightly, so I sent another list to him (I didn't realize that you could 'Mark as fixed' in webmaster tools) So when I sent him more, he 301 redirected them again (with many duplicates) as he was told without really digging any deeper. Today, when I talked about more re-directs, he suggested that 404's do have a place, that if they are actually pages that don't exist anymore, then a ton of 301 re-directs may not be the answer. So my two questions are: 1. Should I continue to relentlessly try to get rid of all 404's on my site, and if so, do I have to be careful not to be lazy and just send most of them to the homepage. 2. Are there any tools or really effective ways to remove duplicate 301 redirect records on my .htaccess (because the size of it at this point could very well be slowing down my site). Any help would be appreciated, thanks
Technical SEO | | CleanEdisonInc0 -
Canonical and 301
Hi We have recently restructured our site and 301 redirected some pages. Unfortunately the new page which we 301 to, still had the canonical tags pointing to the old pages. Would this cause google not to index the new pages....?????
Technical SEO | | jj34340 -
Google Search memory
Hi we have had the following statement from a member of our Japan office with regards google displaying search results, would anyone be able to give us a definitive answer on this. Google remembers previous non-mobile related searches For example, we already know that we come up on the first page if you select “kaigai keitai” (mobile phone for use abroad) and “UK” where as we don’t for searches where you replace the UK with the US or other countries. This means that if a customer, for example, does a search just on the UK e.g. using words like UK travel, London, millennium dome, etc. and then does a separate search just using the words “kaigai keitai” that google could show us as a link on the first page. However, if an individual did a search on Paris, France, Eiffel Tower, and then did a search for “kaigai keitai”, our link might not appear on the page. I don’t know if we have tested this already, but Google seems to have a very long “memory” and I could see this kind of aspect of Google resulting in us missing significant business from people going to the US, France, Italy, etc. Any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | -Al-0 -
Best URL Structure for Product Pages?
I am happy with my URLs and my ecommerce site ranks well over all, but I have a question about product URL's. Specifically when the products have multiple attributes such as "color". I use a header URL in order to present the 'style' of products, www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-GIB-LPCCT-LIST and I allow each 'color' to have it's own URL so people can send or bookmark a specific item. www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-GIB-LPCCT-ANCH1 www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-GIB-LPCCT-WRCH1 I use a rel canonical to show that the header URL is the URL search engines should be indexing and to avoid duplicate content issues from having the exact same info, MP3's, PDF's, Video's accessories, etc on each specific item URL. I also have a 'noindex no follow' on the specific item URL. These header URLs rank well, but when using tools like SEOMoz, which I love, my header pages fail for using rel canonical and 'noindex no follow' I've considered only having the header URL, but I like the idea of shoppers being able to get to the specific product URL. Do I need the no index no follow? Do I even need the rel canonical? Any suggestions?
Technical SEO | | dianeb1520 -
What is the best way to fix legacy overly-nested URLs?
Hi everyone, Due to some really poor decisions I made back when I started my site several years ago, I'm lumbered with several hundred pages that have overly-nested URLs. For example: /theme-parks/uk-theme-parks/alton-towers/attractions/enterprise I'd prefer these to feature at most three layers of nesting, for example: /reviews/alton-towers/enterprise Is there a good approach for achieving this, or is it best just to accept the legacy URLs as an unfixable problem, and make sure that future content follows the new structure? I can easily knock together a script to update the aliases for the existing content, but I'm concerned about having hundreds of 301 redirects (could this be achieved with a single regular express in .htaccess, for example?). Any guidance appreciated. Thanks, Nick
Technical SEO | | ThemeParkTourist0