Rel=canonical or 301 to pass on page authority/juice
-
I have a large body of product support documentation and there are similar pages for each of versions of the product, with minor changes as the product changes. The two oldest versions of this documentation get the best ranking and are powering Google snippets--however, this content is out of date.
The team responsible for the support documentation wants current pages to rank higher. I suggested 301 redirects but they want to maintain the old page content for clients still using the older version of the product. Is there a way to move a page's power to a more updated version of the page, but without wiping out the old content?
Considering recommending canonical tags, but I'm not sure this will get me all the way there either as there are some differences between pages, especially as the product has changed over time.
Thoughts?
-
Knowing that with a large body of documentation like this, the chances of being able to rewrite it all to combine into a single page are pretty slim (and knowing that might be a very negative user experience) you're really only left with the canonical tag option - assuming the older docs need to be maintained.
You're right to be concerned, as Google has been clear that canonical only applies to pages that have substantially identical content. Unfortunately, they do a really poor job of explaining just how much variation would be allowed.
Is it okay if the canonical is not an exact duplicate of the content?
We allow slight differences, e.g., in the sort order of a table of products. We also recognize that we may crawl the canonical and the duplicate pages at different points in time, so we may occasionally see different versions of your content. All of that is okay with us.
~ https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.htmlMy impression is that they would honour canonical in your use case.
Really, the only way to know is to select a couple of products' documentation pages and conduct a test. Canonicalise all old version to the current version and request re-indexing for each page. Then monitor the results (The new index monitoring tools in the new GSC are useful for this). You'll want to choose at least one test case that involves featured snippets - it would be incredibly useful to know if the FS transfers across to the new canonical page!
Do note that you'll need an ongoing process for managing the canonicals s each new iteration of documentation is added - all related pages will need to have their canonicals updated to point to the newest each time new docs are published.
Interesting conundrum. Please let us know the results if you decide to try a test!
Is that useful?
Paul
-
Please don't hijack someone else's question, zecase. Much better if you start your own question as it's completely unrelated to the current one.
Paul
-
Well is not as simple there are many factors involved as I see both of them have a low DA but probably you have some traffic, so the first thing that you need to know is which pages are ranking, the queries of those pages, Ideally the merger process should preserve the URL structure of both and make the redirection from the server
-
Basically, you have a problem because you are competing with your own content, So Google is select the old pages because from google perspective they are most trustable and have more value. So I suggest is merge them into a single one.
Let's take a simple example lets assume you have a car manufacturer like Toyota. You have a car model like Corolla and it was launched 2018 but this model has several versions L, LE, LE Eco, XLE, SE, and XSE.
So you can create a single page for each version with a parent page or parent category and it will look like this
But in your case based on what you mentioned Google has problems to determinate which one is the right one according to user intent. So, In that case, you can merge all those pages into a single master page so instead of creating several you put all your content in a single page divided into several sections (anchor links)
So your site will look like this
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/#L
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/#LE
- www.toyota.com/corolla-2018/#XLE
This is a good example of how to integrate https://kinsta.com/blog/anchor-links/
Hope this info will answer your question
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
-
Should i noindex/nofollow a faceted navigation page?
I have an ecommerce website with 4 departments, that share the same categories, For example a bicycle shop would have different products for mountain biking and road cycling, but they would both share the same 'tyres' category. I get around this by having the department as a filter, that changes the products on show, and adds a URL parameter of ?department=1. When this filter is applied, i have a canonical link setup to the non-filtered category. Any filter links are nofollowed. My top menu has 4 different sections, one for each department, and links to these URLs with the department parameter already on, these links are set to allow robots to follow. As i am actively pointing Google at these pages, and it is my main navigation, should the page they go to be noindexed? As its the canonical i want to rank. Hopefully this makes sense. Cheers
Technical SEO | | SEOhmygod0 -
Rel=Canonical For Landing Pages
We have PPC landing pages that are also ranking in organic search. We've decided to create new landing pages that have been improved to rank better in natural search. The PPC team however wants to use their original landing pages so we are unable to 301 these pages to the new pages being created. We need to block the old PPC pages from search. Any idea if we can use rel=canonical? The difference between old PPC page and new landing page is much more content to support keyword targeting and provide value to users. Google says it's OK to use rel=canonical if pages are similar but not sure if this applies to us. The old PPC pages have 1 paragraph of content followed by featured products for sale. The new pages have 4-5 paragraphs of content and many more products for sale. The other option would be to add meta noindex to the old PPC landing pages. Curious as to what you guys think. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
Blog Page Titles - Page 1, Page 2 etc.
Hi All, I have a couple of crawl errors coming up in MOZ that I am trying to fix. They are duplicate page title issues with my blog area. For example we have a URL of www.ourwebsite.com/blog/page/1 and as we have quite a few blog posts they get put onto another page, example www.ourwebsite.com/blog/page/2 both of these urls have the same heading, title, meta description etc. I was just wondering if this was an actual SEO problem or not and if there is a way to fix it. I am using Wordpress for reference but I can't see anywhere to access the settings of these pages. Thanks
Technical SEO | | O2C0 -
Duplicated rel=author tags (x 3) on WordPress pages, any issue with this?
Hi,
Technical SEO | | jeffwhitfield
We seem to have duplicated rel=author tags (x 3) on WordPress pages, as we are using Yoast WordPress SEO plugin which adds a rel=author tag into the head of the page and Fancier Author Box plugin which seems to add a further two rel=author tags toward the bottom of the page. I checked the settings for Fancier Author Box and there doesn't seem to be the option to turn rel=author tags off; we need to keep this plugin enabled as we want the two tab functionality of the author bio and latest posts. All three rel=author tags seem to be correctly formatted and Google Structured Data Testing Tool shows that all authorship rel=author markup is correct; is there any issue with having these duplicated rel=author tags on the WordPress pages?
I tried searching the Q&A but couldn't find anything similar enough to what I'm asking above. Many thanks in advance and kind regards.0 -
Using Rel Nofollow on Duplicate Pages
Hi there, I have a rather large site that has duplicate content on many pages due to how it's being spidered by google. I was hoping I could set the internal link to this page as "nofollow." My question is that I have hundreds of other sites with backlinks to these duplicate content pages.. will this affect me negatively if I tell google not to index the duplicated pages?
Technical SEO | | trialminecraftserverfinder0 -
Rel - canonical vs 301 redirect
I have multiple product pages on my site - what is better for rankings in your experiance? If I 301 the pages to 1 correct version of the product page - or if I rel caanonical to the one correct page?
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820610 -
How should 301 redirects affect Page Authority?
We recently setting up 301 redirects from one of our sites so that the site redirects from the www version to the non-www version for all pages. We want to quantify what we expect to see as results. From what the experts say, we'd expect that the Page Authority of the canonical versio (non-www) will be higher than either of the two separate ones were previously. For instance, if this page - www.website.com/information/ - had a PA of 57 and this one - website.com/information/ - had a PA of 53, some time after the 301 redirects from www to non-www have been put into place, we should see the non-www version of that page move up to some PA about 57. It our thinking correct? How long does it normally take to see a PA update take place in a scenario like this? Thanks, Richard
Technical SEO | | LDS-SEO0 -
New website branding, differences between http://www and http://
Hey Mozers! We will be creating another brand pretty soon with some pretty cool interactive features and before we start development of the site I was wondering if there are any pros/cons to branding the site sans the www. For example http://example123.com and http://www.example123.com. I would much prefer to brand it has http://example123.com but I just wanted to check first to see if that would have any negative SEO ramifications. It seems that it might just be a preference as I looked at Facebook and Twitter and they both do it differently, same with Groupon and LivingSocial. Looking forward to hearing from you guys!
Technical SEO | | Riggz1