404 or rel="canonical" for empty search results?
-
We have search on our site, using the URL, so we might have: example.com/location-1/service-1, or example.com/location-2/service-2. Since we're a directory we want these pages to rank.
Sometimes, there are no search results for a particular location/service combo, and when that happens we show an advanced search form that lets the user choose another location, or expand the search area, or otherwise help themselves. However, that search form still appears at the URL example.com/location/service - so there are several location/service combos on our website that show that particular form, leading to duplicate content issues.
We may have search results to display on these pages in the future, so we want to keep them around, and would like Google to look at them and even index them if that happens, so what's the best option here? Should we rel="canonical" the page to the example.com/search (where the search form usually resides)? Should we serve the search form page with an HTTP 404 header? Something else?
I look forward to the discussion.
-
Nonindex sounds like a great idea. But should those empty search pages have the HTTP status 404 or 200?
-
That's smart about the title tag. I'm not super concerned about CTR for pages that have no content - but that's because I assume they're not ranked well, since they have no content, and I could be wrong about that. However, when they do start having content, that delay between when they have content and when Google updates the title that it displays will not be fun.
It looks like noindex is the way to go here - thanks to both you & Nico - I hadn't even thought of it, I was stuck on 404 vs canonical.
-
John,
I'm in agreement with Netzkern on this matter. If those pages currently have little to no value, I'd personally noindex those pages that provide no content. To answer your question, for them to be re-indexed, it would simply just take a new crawl. If you have your XML sitemaps setup correctly, resubmitting these when a page is no longer a 'noindex' should expedite this process.
Even if you do not take the above step, I would caution you not to change the Titles to include that there is no content at that specific location. Keep in mind that title tags serve to tell search engines what content is found on a page & to communicate the same for users when they see your page in a SERP. This would likely tank your CTR on any pages that had no content, which could pose a problem.
Hope this helps!
Trenton
-
Your'e right, ideally these URLs would not exist until needed. The problem I have is that our search is set up so it doesn't require an HTTP Post to the server - it works by manipulating the URL, so if someone searches for Service 5 at Location 1, the URL /location-1/service-5 has to present them with something - we're using a search form, but a signup form would work well too, and I think there is some limited use to the user to say "no, we don't have anything here."
I guess I could rebuild the page somewhat to make the "There are no results for Service 5 at Location 1" message bigger - it could even be in the Title / H1, then show my re-search or signup form - that would get rid of duplicate title tag problems, but my content would still essentially be the same - a form - so I'd have duplicate content problems.
Noindex would be a good idea, and easy to do. Do you know how easy it is to un-noindex later? As in, if I remove the noindex meta tag or header, how long will it take search engines to pick up on the change?
These URLs are in my sitemap too, and I should try to get rid of them there, but checking if there are search results in each location when building the sitemap is going to kill the webserver
-
I would not use a canonical here. I'd implement a logic that sets empty categories on noindex as long as they are empty IF they are really, really useful and needed there, which I kinda doubt. Might be if you display a "no entry yet - place your location here" registration form or something like that. Nearly as likely I'd just kill them and recreate them when/if there is actually useful content for the page. Core question I'd ask is: What exact use DO such pages have for users/search engines? (and NOT: What future use might they eventually have some day for you/others?)
Nico
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
-
Spam URL'S in search results
We built a new website for a client. When I do 'site:clientswebsite.com' in Google it shows some of the real, recently submitted pages. But it also shows many pages of spam url results, like this 'clientswebsite.com/gockumamaso/22753.htm' - all of which then go to the sites 404 page. They have page titles and meta descriptions in Chinese or Japanese too. Some of the urls are of real pages, and link to the correct page, despite having the same Chinese page titles and descriptions in the SERPS. When I went to remove all the spammy urls in Search Console (it only allowed me to temporarily hide them), a whole load of new ones popped up in the SERPS after a day or two. The site files itself are all fine, with no errors in the server logs. All the usual stuff...robots.txt, sitemap etc seems ok and the proper pages have all been requested for indexing and are slowly appearing. The spammy ones continue though. What is going on and how can I fix it?
Technical SEO | | Digital-Murph0 -
Rel-canonical and meta data
Hey Mozzers, Help please. I am migrating content for a new website (1000's of pages) and am using the canonical tag on a number of pages. For the pages which I am asking Google not to recognise / index as the master version, and in the interests of time do I need to take the time to fill in the meta <title><description> etc each time?</p> <p>Ben</p></title>
Technical SEO | | Bendall0 -
Rel="next"
Hi I was just wondering if there is any difference in using rel='next' rather than rel="next". Would it still work the same way? I mean using the apostrophes differently, would it matter? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | pikka0 -
Implement rel canonical on a Blogspot blog
Does anyone know how to implement a rel canonical tag on a Blogspot blog? I am trying to pass link juice from an old Blogspot blog to a self-hosted website.
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs0 -
Rel="canonical" of .html/ to .html
Hi, could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless? I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls. http://www.example.com/petra.html/
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
to
http://www.example.com/petra.html I mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ??? Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical. What is your position here?0 -
Rel=Canonical Header Location
Hello, I've been trying to get our rel=canonical issues sorted out. A fellow named Ayaz very kindly pointed out that I'm trying to put the code into the wysisyg editor, but this might not be the best place to put the code. We are using Drupal 6. Where do I insert the code? head> <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/blog/my-awesome-blog-post"> Thanks!
Technical SEO | | OTSEO0 -
Why "title missing or empty" when title tag exists?
Greetings! On Dec 1, 2011 in a SEOMoz campaign, two crawl metrics shot up from zero (Nov 17, Nov 24). "Title missing or empty" was 9,676. "Duplicate page content" was 9,678. Whoa! Content at site has not changed. I checked a sample of web pages and each seems to have a proper TITLE tag. Page content differs as well -- albeit we list electronic part numbers of hard-to-find parts, which look similar. I found a similar post http://www.seomoz.org/q/why-crawl-error-title-missing-or-empty-when-there-is-already-title-and-meta-desciption-in-place . In answer, Sha ran Screaming Frog crawler. I ran Frog crawler on a few hundred pages. Titles were found and hash codes were unique. Hmmm. Site with errors is http://electronics1.usbid.com Small sample of pages with errors: electronics1.usbid.com/catalog_10.html
Technical SEO | | groovykarma
electronics1.usbid.com/catalog_100.html
electronics1.usbid.com/catalog_1000.html I've tried to reproduce errors yet I cannot. What am I missing please? Thanks kindly, Loren0 -
Syndication: Link back vs. Rel Canonical
For content syndication, let's say I have the choice of (1) a link back or (2) a cross domain rel canonical to the original page, which one would you choose and why? (I'm trying to pick the best option to save dev time!) I'm also curious to know what would be the difference in SERPs between the link back & the canonical solution for the original publisher and for sydication partners? (I would prefer not having the syndication partners disappeared entirely from SERPs, I just want to make sure I'm first!) A side question: What's the difference in real life between the Google source attribution tag & the cross domain rel canonical tag? Thanks! PS: Don't know if it helps but note that we can syndicate 1 article to multiple syndication partners (It would't be impossible to see 1 article syndicated to 50 partners)
Technical SEO | | raywatson0