Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Category page canonical tag
-
I know this question has been asked a few times on here but I'm looking for very specific advice.
Currently when you go to a category, say http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html, a canonical tag is added to the head of the page.
There are plenty of "variant" pages which carry the same tag, for example:
/range.html?p=2
/range.html?p=3
/range.html?dir=asc&order=price
/range.html?dir=asc&limit=all&order=priceIs it wise to push the "link juice" for each of these variant pages to the top level page? Or should each variant page have its own unique canonical tag?
After reading many blog posts, guides and papers I'm truly confused! Any general guidance or recommendations would be much appreciated.
Chris.
-
Thanks DP for the input!
-
It's tricky. Practically, I tend to agree with Tom - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially at small-to-medium scale (let's say hundreds of URLs, but not thousands), rel=canonical is probably going to do the job here.
Technically, CleverPhd is correct that paginated content may be better served by rel=prev/next, and Google isn't fond of you canonical'ing to page 1 of search results. Their other preferred method is to canonical to a "View All" page (and make that page/link available to visitors), if that page loads reasonably and isn't huge.
In practice, they don't seem to penalized anyone for a canonical to page 1, and I know some mega-site SEOs who use rel=prev/next and have been almost completely unable to tell if it works (based on how Google still indexes and ranks the content). I think the critical thing is to keep most of these pages out of the index and avoid the duplicates. If your approach is working for now, my gut says to leave it alone.
-
I would agree that use of the canonical tag is great, I would not say that it is the most optimal solution in this case as you have paginated results
http://searchengineland.com/the-latest-greatest-on-seo-pagination-114284
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-about-pagination-with-relnext-and.html
The use of rel next prev would be more appropriate in that case. It has the advantage of also letting the link juice flow properly and it is what Google "expects" to see.
Now, if you wanted to be more conservative with this approach, you could add the meta noindex so that you also get all the other paginated pages out of the index, but this is an optional step.
One other thing to think about, if this is not a pagination issue, but this is more like a search result or resort of the same page, I would no follow links to those pages and noindex the resulting duplicates. You have to think about crawl efficiency and if you are having Google crawl a bunch of thin pages that you are trying to canonical to a parent page, you are wasting Google's time. Google will only spend so much time on a site spidering. Do you want it to waste time spidering a ton of pages that dont matter? Sure, the canonical would give Google all the right signals of what page goes where, but why would you want it to waste time doing that. You would rather Google spend time on your most important pages and spidering and reindexing those. Think about it, if you are going to ask a math savant to help you with your homework, are you going to have him/her spend time helping you with 1000 simple addition problems? No! You would go right to the more important/complex items.
http://searchengineland.com/how-i-think-crawl-budget-works-sort-of-59768
Anyway, hope this helps give you another perspective. Someone will probably say, well, this only matters on larger sites etc. I say no, it matters on all sites as you always want to have your best foot forward when the spiders come a crawling.
-
Hi Chris
First and foremost, in my mind you don't need to change a thing. It's working well - and here's why:
Think of a canonical tag as an instruction to Google to treat that URL is the top dog, the be all and end all - the one that you want Google to index and rank.
Any other page or URL that has the same canonical tag on it is basically your way of saying - "see this page? Don't worry about that page, it's a variant of this page that might look the same. Ignore it and rank that other page!"
Now, why would you want to do this? Well, if Google thinks that your website has duplicated content and it believes it is being done to manipulate or game the algorithm, it might hit you with a penalty (often a Panda penalty).
Ecommerce sites often have this problem with their product pages and, while not usually intentional, Google has been known to put penalties on these sites.
Your site, in my mind, counters all of these problems very well.
Google can and will index URLs with query strings on them (anything with a "?" after it) and treat them as separate pages. That means, theoretically, Google would have tried to index all of these URLs of yours:
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?p=2_
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?p=3_
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?dir=asc&order=price_
http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html_?dir=asc&limit=all&order=price_Now this would be a problem, as you'd quite likely have similar looking pages being indexed where products appear in multiple URLs. This duplicate content could lead to a penalty.
But that's where the canonical tag comes in and does a great job. Your tag is telling Google "ignore all versions of the http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html URL with a ? on the end of it - that's just to help the user and I'm not trying to duplicate content to try and rank higher. Ignore them and treat http://www.bronterose.co.uk/range.html as the main page"
So you're avoiding the problem of duplicate content and your canonicalisation is working well. Very well, in fact. If you do a site search (check it out here) you will see that only one version of the URL has been indexed and noted by Google - and that's the canonical version.
So keep it just as it is in my eyes - it's set up very well indeed!
Hope this helps.
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
-
Landing page separate from product page
Hello there, I have a wordpress website with a woocommerce plugin. I have 4 landing pages that describe my products and at the end of the pages, I have a CTA to my product page. is it bad for SEO? my website: https://relationadviser.ir
On-Page Optimization | Oct 9, 2019, 8:02 PM | Aaron.be1 -
Will it upset Google if I aggregate product page reviews up into a product category page?
We have reviews on our product pages and we are considering averaging those reviews out and putting them on specific category pages in order for the average product ratings to be displayed in search results. Each averaged category review would be only for the products within it's category, and all reviews are from users of the site, no 3rd party reviews. For example, averaging the reviews from all of our boxes products pages, and listing that average review on the boxes category page. My question is, will this be doing anything wrong in the eyes of Google, and if so how so? -Derick
On-Page Optimization | Sep 30, 2016, 8:28 PM | Deluxe0 -
Why are http and https pages showing different domain/page authorities?
My website www.aquatell.com was recently moved to the Shopify platform. We chose to use the http domain, because we didn't want to change too much, too quickly by moving to https. Only our shopping cart is using https protocol. We noticed however, that https versions of our non-cart pages were being indexed, so we created canonical tags to point the https version of a page to the http version. What's got me puzzled though, is when I use open site explorer to look at domain/page authority values, I get different scores for the http vs. https version. And the https version is always better. Example: http://www.aquatell.com DA = 21 and https://www.aquatell.com DA = 27. Can somebody please help me make sense of this? Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | Apr 1, 2016, 7:19 AM | Aquatell1 -
Canonical tags in the body?
Hi there, Does anyone know if placing canonical tags in the body instead of the header of a page will still "take"? The system we are on means that making an editable header is no easy business and I was just wondering how big of a difference it makes to have it in a different area. Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | May 21, 2015, 6:56 AM | Whittie0 -
SVG image files causing multiple title tags on page - SEO issue?
Does anyone have any experience with SVG image files and on-page SEO? A client is using them and it seems they use the title tag in the same way a regular image (JPG/PNG) would use an image ALT tag. I'm concerned that search engines will see the multiple title tags on the page and that this will cause SEO issues. Regular crawlers like Moz flag it as a second title tag, however it's outside the header and in a SVG wrap so the crawlers really should understand that this is a SVG title rather than a second page title. But is this the case? If anyone has experience with this, I'd love to hear about it.
On-Page Optimization | Sep 8, 2016, 11:56 AM | mrdavidingram2 -
How do I remove a Canonical URL Tag?
Some of my report cards say I have too many canonical URL tags. However, there is no information no how to delete one. Can someone give me a link or explain? Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | Apr 29, 2013, 5:42 PM | dealblogger0 -
How to avoid keyword stuffing on e-Commerce Category pages
Hi, I'm optimizing a large, consumer electronic e-commerce superstore. Based on client's choice of keywords, I'm using product category pages as my target urls. Because of the proprietary CMS structure, product names and titles, featured on my landing pages (product category pages) create a keyword overkill, affecting various ranking factors. For example, one of the target urls / landing pages, dedicated to a specific product category, mentions the keyword over 190 times because of so many product titles in the "body" section. Would inline "rel="canonical" help? If yes, what part of the website should it "canonize"? If rel="canonical" is not the answer, what strategies would you suggest? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | Nov 22, 2011, 5:51 PM | dimanyc0 -
How to handle Meta Tags on Pagination... page 2,3,4....
Seems that SEOMoz reports are considering my paginated pages as duplicate Meta Tags. For example, I have a product catalog with 5 paginated pages. Obviously the content on each page is unique and the URL ends in =4, =5 for the page number, but the Title and Description are the same for all the pages. Any suggestions on how to handle this? The pages other than page 1 are not indexed, so it should not be a big deal. But wondering if I should programatically ad the page number to the additional pages to show a difference?
On-Page Optimization | Jul 14, 2011, 5:31 AM | paddlej0