Best Practice Approaches to Canonicals vs. Indexing in Google Sitemap vs. No Follow Tags
-
Hi There,
I am working on the following website: https://wave.com.au/
I have become aware that there are different pages that are competing for the same keywords.
For example, I just started to update a core, category page - Anaesthetics (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/) to focus mainly around the keywords ‘Anaesthetist Jobs’.
But I have recognized that there are ongoing landing pages that contain pretty similar content:
We want to direct organic traffic to our core pages e.g. (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/).
This then leads me to have to deal with the duplicate pages with either a canonical link (content manageable) or maybe alternatively adding a no-follow tag or updating the robots.txt. Our resident developer also suggested that it might be good to use Google Index in the sitemap to tell Google that these are of less value?
What is the best approach? Should I add a canonical link to the landing pages pointing it to the category page? Or alternatively, should I use the Google Index? Or even another approach?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-
This all sounds good, just make sure before you proceed, you use GA to check what % of your SEO (segment: "Organic") traffic comes from these URLs. Don't act on a hunch, act on data!
-
Thank you for the comprehensive response this is greatly appreciated my friend.
Yes, I agree. I have since read further and have completely ruled out blocking (robots txt. etc) as an option.
I went back and read some more Moz/SEO articles and I think I have narrowed it down to either:
a) canonicals pointing from the landing pages to the core website category pages
b) NoIndex/Follow tags on the landing pages
Basically, I think the key contextual factors to keep in mind are that:
- The landing pages are basically just sent to people directly by our recruiters in emails and over the phone, so they are almost counted as direct traffic.
- It just contains a form and doesn't encourage click through into our core website beside logo etc. - we just want them to register directly on that page.
- Over the past year, the visits on the landing pages were much, much less, and the bounce rate and exit % was higher.
- my manager has told me to prioritise the SEO towards the core category pages as they see the landing pages as purely for UX/registrations/useful to internal business recruiting practices rather than encouraging organic traffic.
I think canonicals would probably work the best since in some cases the landing pages were ranking higher than the category pages and it should hopefully transfer a bit of ranking power to the category pages.
But perhaps you are right and I can batch apply canonicals monitor the results and then progress.
Once again, thank you for your response.
-
First of all keep in mind that Google has chosen the pages it is deciding to rank for one reason or another, and that canonical tags do not consolidate link equity (SEO authority) in the same way which 301 redirects do
As such, it's possible that you could implement a very 'logical' canonical tag structure, but for whatever reason Google may not give your new 'canonical' URLs the same rankings which it ascribed to the old URLs. So there is a possibility here that, you could lose some rankings! Google's acceptance of both the canonical tag and the 301 redirect depends upon the (machine-like) similarity of the content on both URLs
Think of Boolean string similarity. You get two strings of text, whack them into a tool like this one - and it tells you the 'percentage' of similarity between the two text strings. Google operate something similar yet infinitely more sophisticated. No one has told me that they do this, I have observed it over hundreds of site migration projects where, sometimes Google gives the new site loads of SEO authority through the 301s and sometimes not much at all. For me, the two main causes of Google refusing to accept new canonical URLs are redirect chains (which could include soft redirect chains) but also content 'dissimilarity'. Basically, content has won links and interactions on one URL which prove it is popular and authoritative. If you move that content somewhere else, or tell Google to go somewhere else instead - they have to be pretty certain that the new content is pretty much the same, otherwise it's a risk to them and an 'unknown quantity' in the SERPs (in terms of CTR and stuff)
If you're pretty damn sure that you have loads of URLs which are essentially the same, read the same, reference the same prices for things (one isn't cheaper than the other), that Google has really chosen the wrong page to rank in terms of Google-user click-through UX, then go ahead and lay out your canonical tag strategy
Personally I'd pick sections of the site and do it one part at a time in isolation, so you can minimise losses from disturbing Google and also measure your efforts more effectively / efficiently
If you no-index and robots-block URLs, it KILLS their SEO authority (dead) instead of moving it elsewhere (so steer clear of those except in extreme situations, they're really a last resort if you have the worst sprawling architecture imaginable). 301 redirects can shift ranking URLs and relevance, but don't pipe much authority. 301 redirects (if handled correctly) do all three things
What you have to ask yourself is, if you flat out deleted the pages you don't want to rank (obviously you wouldn't do this, as it would cause internal UX issues on your site) - if you did that, would Google:
A) Rank the other pages in their place from your site, which you want Google to rank
B) Give up on you and just rank similar pages (to the ones you don't want to rank) from other, competing sites instead
If you think (A) - take a measured, sectioned, small approach to canonical tag deployment and really test it before full roll-out. If you think (B), then you are admitting that there's something more Google-friendly one the pages you don't want to be ranking and just have to accept - no, your Google->conversion funnel will never be completely perfect like how you want it to be. You have to satisfy Google, not the other way around
Hope that 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
-
Google Rank 0 - Best way?
We are trying to create tables or bullet points on each of our pages summarising the content of the page and get it to rank on position 0 on Google. This technique worked for some searches but not all so we were wondering: Is it beneficial to add links or not ? Is there a keyword limit? We are on Magento 2 if that helps. Thanks James
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JamesDavison0 -
Are there any downsides to using a canonical tag temporarily?
I'm working on redesigning our website. One of the content types has a main archive page (/success-stories) containing all of the success stories (written by graduates of our program). Because we plan to have success stories for other people (non-graduates), I'm using category hierarchies (/success-stories/graduates and success-stories/nonprofits, for example). It will go one level deeper to organize graduates by graduation year (/success-stories/graduates/%year%). I think this will work out well. However, we won't have non-graduate success stories for a little while, probably at least a few weeks, which means that /success-stories and /.../graduates indices will contain the same content for a while. So my question is this: Will it hurt to use a canonical tag that points to /success-stories/graduates as the authority until the main archive page contains more than just graduates? Or would it be better to use a 302 redirect from /success-stories to /.../graduates until more diverse content is added?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bcaples0 -
URL Change Best Practice
I'm changing the url of some old pages to see if I can't get a little more organic out of them. After changing the url, and maybe title/desc tags as well, I plan to have Google fetch them. How does Google know that the old url is 301'd to the new url and the new url is not just a page of duplicate content? Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Google Indexed Old Backups Help!
I have the bad habit of renaming a html page sitting on my server, before uploading a new version. I usually do this after a major change. So after the upload, on my server would be "product.html" as well as "product050714".html. I just stumbled on the fact G has been indexing these backups. Can I just delete them and produce a 404?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alrockn0 -
Best practices with reoccurring event listings
On our client's events page there are a few reoccurring events that each have their own detail page. I'm trying to figure out what's the best practice for minimising duplicate content. For example, for the Bribie Island Markets that repeat weekly there are 2 (+more) detailed event pages: http://www.ourbribie.com/e/bribie-island-markets/1869/2013-12-07/2013-12-07
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | michaelp85
http://www.ourbribie.com/e/bribie-island-markets/1869/2013-12-14/2013-12-14 While they both contain duplicated content, they're unique in that they display the specific events date/time. My thinking is that the future events (e.g. 2013-12-14) should have a canonical link to the upcoming/next event (i.e. 2013-12-07). However this would require constantly updating/changing the canonical links. What's the best way to deal with this from a duplicate content prospective? Any better recommendations?0 -
Huge google index with un-relevant pages
Hi, i run a site about sport matches, every match has a page and the pages are generated automatically from the DB. pages are not duplicated, but over time some look a little bit similar. after a match finishes it has no internal links or sitemap entry, but it's reachable by direct URL and continues to be on google index. so over time we have more than 100,000 indexed pages. since past matches have no significance and they're not linked and a match can repeat and it may look like duplicate content....what you suggest us to do: when a match is finished - not linked, but appears on the index and SERP 301 redirect the match Page to the match Category which is a higher hierarchy and is always relevant? use rel=canonical to the match Category do nothing.... *301 redirect will shrink my index status, some say a high index status is good... *is it safe to 301 redirect 100,000 pages at once - wouldn't it look strange to google? *would canonical remove the past matches pages from the index? what do you think? Thanks, Assaf.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stassaf0 -
Are pages with a canonical tag indexed?
Hello here, here are my questions for you related to the canonical tag: 1. If I put online a new webpage with a canonical tag pointing to a different page, will this new page be indexed by Google and will I be able to find it in the index? 2. If instead I apply the canonical tag to a page already in the index, will this page be removed from the index? Thank you in advance for any insights! Fabrizio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Canonical Meta Tag
Can someone explain how this works and how necessary is it? For example, I have a new client, who is ranking WITHOUT the www in their domain, but they have a good deal of backlinks already that have www in it. When I set up google webmaster tools I made 2, one for WWW and one for WITHOUT and there are diffenet numbers of backlinks for each. I have no idea what do about this or if I should even do anything. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheGrid0