Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
-
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag.
We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time.
A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these.
Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?)
Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up?
Thanks
-
I'll add this article by Rand that I came across too. I'm busy testing the solution presented in it:
https://moz.com/blog/are-404-pages-always-bad-for-seo
In summary, 404 all dead pages with a good custom 404 page so as to not waste crawl bandwidth. Then selectively 301 those dead pages that have accrued some good link value.
Thanks Donna/Tammy for pointing me in this direction..
-
In this scenario yes, a customized 404 page with a link to a few top level ( useful) links would be better served to both the user and to Google. From a strictly SEO standpoint, 100,000 redirects and or canonical tags would not benefit your SEO.
-
Thanks Donna, good points..
We return a hard 404, so it's treated correctly by google. We are just looking at this from a SEO point of view now to see if there's any way to reclaim this lost link juice.
Your point about looking at the value of those incoming links is a good one. I suppose it's not worth making google crawl 100,000 more pages for the sake of a few links. We've just starting seeing these pop up in Moz Analytics as link opportunities, and we can see them as 404's in site explorer too. There are a few hundred of these incoming links that point to a 404, so we feel this could have an impact.
I suppose we could selectively 301 any higher value links to the home page.. It will be an administrative nightmare, but doable..
How do others tackle this problem. Does everyone just hard 404 a page when that loses the link juice for incoming links to it..?
Thanks
-
Hi David,
When you say "we've been 404'ing them for years", does that mean you've created a custom 404 page that explains the situation to site visitors or does it mean you've been letting them naturally error and return the appropriate 404 (page not found) error to Google? It makes a difference. If the pages truly no longer exist and there is no equivalent replacement, you should be letting them naturally error (return a 404 return code) so as not to mislead Google's robots and site visitors.
Have you looked at the value of those incoming links? They may be low value anyway. There may be more valuable things you could be doing with your time and budget.
To answer your specific questions:
_Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) _
Yes, if those pages (or valuable replacements) don't actually exist. You'd be wasting valuable crawl budget. This looks like it might be especially true in your case given the size of your site. Check out this article. I think you might find it very helpful. It's an explanation of soft 404 errors and what you should do about them.
Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up?
If the canonical tag is changed or removed, Google will find and reindex it next time it crawls your site (assuming you don't run out of crawl budget). You don't need to use WMT unless you're impatient and want to try to speed the process up.
-
Thanks Sandi, I did.. It's a great article and it answered many questions for me, but i couldn't really get clarity on my last two questions above..
-
Hey David
Check this MOZ Blog post about Rel=Canlonical appropriately named Rel=Confused?
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
-
We recently updated a large guide that takes the place of the original. The original has some nice organic traffic to it and I don't want to risk losing it. Should I 301 redirect to the new version, or update all the info directly on the original page?
We don't have a lot of content that garners much non-branded organic, so this is something I don't want to risk losing. We do not have a whole lot of external links into the page either.
On-Page Optimization | | AFP_Digital1 -
Duplicate Page content | What to do?
Hello Guys, I have some duplicate pages detected by MOZ. Most of the URL´s are from a registracion process for users, so the URL´s are all like this: www.exemple.com/user/login?destination=node/125%23comment-form What should I do? Add this to robot txt? If so how? Whats the command to add in Google Webmaster? Thanks in advance! Pedro Pereira
On-Page Optimization | | Kalitenko20140 -
Summarize your question.Images being seen as duplicate content/pages
My images suddenly are appearing in my crawl reports as duplicate content, without meta tags, this happened over night and cant figure out why.
On-Page Optimization | | RBYoung0 -
Is Googlebot seeing text in my 'Read More' bar and could they even be penalising me for it?
Hi guys. Our web developers have put a read more bar that contains the on page SEO text for our webpage. By default, the read more bar is not expanded and you cannot see the text within. If you click 'Read More', the box expands and the text is shown on the page. I was wondering if googlebot is seeing this text at all - it's really important that it does because it contains all the on-page SEO text. I also wondered if this type of approach is still considered 'white hat'? If it's not, could google be penalising us for it? Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | CarlDarby0 -
Should I worry about duplicate titles on pages where there is paginated content?
LivingThere.com is a real estate search site and many of our content pages are "search result" - ish in that a page often provides all the listings that are available and this may go on for multiple pages. For example, this is a primary page about a building: http://livingthere.com/building/31308-Cocoa-Exchange Because of the number of listings, the listings paginate to a second page: http://livingthere.com/building/31308-Cocoa-Exchange?MListings_page=2 Both pages have the same Page Title. Is this a concern? If so is there a "best practice" for giving paginated content different titles? Thanks! Nate
On-Page Optimization | | nate1230 -
Number of characters to duplicate content
I wonder how much characters in a page title so it can be characterized for Googleas duplicate content?
On-Page Optimization | | imoveiscamposdojordao
Sorry for the English, I used Google Translator.
I'm from Brazil 😄
Thanks.0 -
My report also notes that I have 176 Rel Canonical. What does this mean and how do I fix it. Thanks
My report also notes that I have 176 Rel Canonical. What does this mean and how do I fix it. Thanks http://pro.seomoz.org/campaigns/95663/issues/18
On-Page Optimization | | cyaindc0 -
Duplicate Page Title
Hi Guys, First off, it's an honour to be a part of this awesome community. I'm using WordPress and getting top 3 rankings for great keywords and I'm very excited, however my page titles are in this format "keyword optimised title here - site name here" eg: "This is my keyword - this is the name of my blog", "This is another keyword - this is the name of my blog", "This is a longtail keyword - this is the name of my blog" SEOMoz is reporting errors because of duplicate page title tags due to the "this is the name of my blog" being in every page title. Will this hurt my rankings? Thanks in advance and keep up the great work! Cheers, Troy.
On-Page Optimization | | TroyDean710