301 to canonical
-
I'm doing some work on a website, they have a very popular product search where you enter a specific part code (6 digits) and it takes you to the product. So for example
Search: 123456
Page redirected to domain.com/product/123456
With a canonical of domain.com/product/this-is-the-product-title
Would it be beneficial to redirect from /product/123456 to /product/this-is-the-product-title
Google seems to be indexing both versions. For some of these products a reasonable amount of links are built.
-
No prob, let me know how things turn out (professional curiosity)
Like yourself my main project is dated in areas and a workaround is more cost effective than a rebuild, always interesting to see how people get around issues.
GL!
-
The 123456 url is only used in once place (or on banners in various places) any time this is in a category it is using the canonical url, once stock is loaded it only takes an hour for this to pull through. So the mass of links to this is the canonical url (however it usually has some form of tracking attached to it)
It's a very large and dated website, so we've got to try and get workarounds until development get round to sorting this kind of thing.
The mass of urls are showing as the canonicals, we've just got a few (hundreds) that aren't playing ball.
Really appreciate your help.
-
Sorry just want to check i understand this,
The product is originally created as domain.com/123456.html and is utilised at this url for a period of time.
You get the canonical url of domain.com/product-title.html later the day the product goes live.
You then create the canonical url and insert the canonical tags at a later time?
If all these are correct then it could explain why your having issues.
Google will crawl and index 123456.html pretty quickly, if this is the base url the product is created at you will most likely find that the links off your category pages use this url and any initial links use this url, this is bad for what you are trying to achieve.
When you then change to the canonical you create a situation where you have 2 copies of the page. 1 with loads of links pointing to it, especially internally, and another with no links. But your trying to tell google that the one with no links is the main version. I would bet this is why it is indexing both.
Even if you change all of the links and add the correct canonical tag it can take time for google to change, even then it can choose to ignore it (it can be frustrating).
Ideally you want to create the canonical URL first or at the same time as the 123456.html url and instantly add all the canonical tags, this way that all default links that a created internally point to it, and the first time it gets crawled it is already pointing to the canonical url.
In your current timetable, I would say redirects would be more suitable than canonical for both the order you release them and the general use.
About your plan,
If your timings are correct, then sure, that doesn't sound like too much of a time commitment and i think the benefit would be worth it. What I would expect to see within the month is the de-indexing of all the 123456.html versions
**Just remember, check all your canonicals actually need a 301 before doing them on bulk. You may have places on your site that you have canonicals because both versions of a page are needed, don't redirect these in your haste
-
Thank you for your response ATP.
I've done numerous checks and we're following all of the best practices, the only thing I can think of is that this url is the first that's seen (we only release stock on a time due to the nature of the business, we then only get the canonical on that day) so any scheduled work uses the part code, which we then at a later date manually change to the canonical url.
We are always trying to get these links changed to the correct version, however as we have a large site (570k+ pages) crawling for these is always an issue.
We can quite comfortably get a list of the canonicals thanks to screaming frog and being able to export our product codes (which are these six digit numbers). So you think it would be a viable solution to bulk upload our whole product catalog and on the /product/123456 urls redirecting to the /product/product-title and we should see a benefit from this? (Would take about an hours work initially then just adding current urls being 5 minutes a day)
-
Hi Thomas,
Firstly, the canonical does the same job as the 301 (for all intensive purposes) without the physical redirect. So in theory only the canonical should be being indexed and all the link juice should be being passed.
The fact that both are indexed suggests that the canonical isn't behaving as intended
- I would check for common cannonical errors to begin with
- If this isn't the case, i would suggest that the 123456 version has too many links maybe internally and externally and that google is ignoring the canonical because it has too much authority.
An issue with using canonical like this is that people who use the search are not sent to the main canonical url. This gives people the opportunity to copy and link to the wrong version of the url, which isn't a practice you want.
A possible solution would be to find all backlinks and get them changed to the main canonical version internally and externally, this could be a lot of work.
The 301 redirect is better in my opinion because it achieves the following
- Customer always see a useful URL and the main canonical URL
- Because of this, links will only likely be built the the url you want
- Google will de-index the 123456 version because it becomes inaccessible
However, unless you can automate this procedure, it can take too much time to create all those 301's for every product.
Personally i use the following guidlines as i find it keeps things clean and tidy
301 any url that isn't domain.com/main-product-url.html
keep the canonical on domain.com/main-product-url.html so that any version created from filtering or unexpected cms pages dont create duplicate content.
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
-
Unsolved Moz is showing a canonical error that dont belong.
Hi guys, and thanks for this excellent source of information. i have an issue with the moz system because is telling to me that i dont have canonical instructions but i have canonical instructions on all my pages, so... im confused because maybe im not understanding what the system want to show to me. if you can help me i will be very gratefull. here you can see a page that have the canonical instruction. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14U_-Sgu_NQaB7kMBH3AguHQMHyHX9L8X/view?usp=sharing and here you can see what is reporting to me the MOZ system. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pqgSC-V9WOyBPvQEr06pbqpLf_w7-q8J/view?usp=sharing this is happening on 19 pages, and all the 19 pages have the canonical instruction.
On-Page Optimization | | b-lab
thanks in advance guys.0 -
Rel=canonical vs noindex/follow - tabs with individual URLs
Hi everyone I've got a situation that I haven't seen in quite this way before. I would like some advice on whether I should be rel=canonicalzing of noindexing/following a range of pages on a clients website. I've just started working on a website that creates individual URLs for tabs within each page which has resulted in several URLs being created for each listing: Example URLs: hotel-downtown-calgary hotel-downtown-calgary/gallery?tab hotel-downtown-calgary?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/map?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/facilities?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/in-the-area?tab Google has indexed over 1500 pages with the "?tab" parameter (there are 4380 page indexed for the site in total), and also seems to be indexing some of these pages without the "?tab" parameter i.e. ("hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews" instead of "hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab") so the amount of potential duplication could be more. These tabbed pages are getting minimal traffic from organic search, so I've got no issues with taking them out of the index - the question is how. There are the issues I see: Each tab has the same title as the other tabs for each location, so lots of title duplication. Each individual tab doesn't have much content (although the content each tab has is unique). I would usually expect the tabs to be distinguished by the parameters only, not have unique URLs - if that was the case we wouldn't have a duplication issue. So the question is: rel=canonical or noindex/follow? I can see benefits of both. Looking forward to your thoughts!
On-Page Optimization | | Digitator0 -
Using Canonical & INDEX, FOLLOW meta tag
I am sort of new to this, and working with an overseas development team on an eCommerce site. I am curious if the Canonical tag will supersede the tag, or if it is best to remove this tag entirely for duplicate product pages?
On-Page Optimization | | BretDarby1 -
I'm using Canonical URL but still receiving message - Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Hello, I checked my site and it looks like everything is setup correctly for canonical url but I keep getting the message that it's not. Am I doing something wrong? SORRY I FIGURED IT OUT! THANK YOU! HOW DO I DELETE THIS?
On-Page Optimization | | seohlp440 -
Rel="canonical" link should they be to or from an "SEO friendly" url
Thanks for taking the time to review this. So for our example, lets use the following SEO friendly link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry-and-biblical-studies/BA-biblical-studies We'll call this link the SEO VERSION The title of the college is" Pacific Christian College of Minstry and Biblical Studies" The title of the program is "BA Biblical Studies" The QUERY version of the link to this page would be something like: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/index.php?collegeid=22&programid=34 Keep in mind that the meta title, description, and keyword tags for the page are all administerable The SEO VERSION is automatically created from the title of the college, and the title of the program. Each one of these titles can be overidden with a URL slug individually. For instance, the admin could make the link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry/biblical-studies by changing the slug for the college to "pacific-christian-college-of-ministry" and the slug for the program to "biblical-studies". Let's call this version the SLUG VERSION So now we have multiple ways to get to the same content. The question on the table is what is best practice for the rel="canonical" link to keep from getting dinged for duplicate content. Let's say that our SEO VERSION is the canonical link for 1 year. Then the choice was made to optimize the links thru the slugs creating the SLUG VERSION. My assumption is that we would keep the SEO VERSION as the canonical link. But then let's say 6 months later that the title of the program is changed in the admin. Now the SEO VERSION has changed and so has the canonical link. Do we lose the link juice garnered over the last 18 months? It would seem to me, that if we use the QUERY version as the canonical link, then any optimizations or changes affect everything except the canonical link, thus keeping the previous link juice earned. But is having an ugly URL as the canonical link detrimental to SEO? Please advise.
On-Page Optimization | | robertdonnell0 -
301 Redirect from .html
Hi there, Following on from this post:
On-Page Optimization | | finelinewebsolutions
http://moz.com/community/q/help-with-duplicated-content Please could one confirm that using the following code in our htaccess file will stop the duplicated content issue we are having. RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /([^.]+.)+html?\ HTTP
RewriteRule (.+).html?$ http://www.bereavementstationery.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.html -f
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ $1.html Kind Regards Alec0 -
Is rel=canonical used only for duplicate content
Can the rel-canonical be used to tell the search engines which page is "preferred" when there are similar pages? For instance, I have an internal page that Google is showing on the first page of the SERPs that I would prefer the home page be ranked for. Both the home and internal page have been optimized for the same keyword. What is interesting is that the internal page has very few backlinks compared to the home page but Google seems to favor it since the keyword is in the URL. I am afraid a 301 will drop us from the first page of the SERPs.
On-Page Optimization | | surveygizmo0 -
301 redirect OK for a newer version of a page that is a different url?
I have about 500 products with multiple urls for the same product, but different versions. I sell wine and have a different page for each vintage. I've decided that is not the best way to go, and want to point the older vintage pages to the latest version page, and make that the only page for the product as time goes on. Do I have to put a link in the text from each older page to the newer, or can I use a 301 to redirect them to the new page? I don't want google to think I'm pulling something funny.
On-Page Optimization | | JeanYates0