"Google-selected canonical different to user-declared" - issues
-
Hi Moz!
We are having issues on a number of our international sites where Google is choosing our page 2 of a category as the canonical over page 1. Example; https://www.yoursclothing.de/kleider-grosse-groessen (Image attached).
We currently use infinite loading, however when javascript is disabled we have a text link to page 2 which is done via a query string of '?filter=true&view=X&categoryid=X&page=2'
Page 2 is blocked via robots.txt and has a canonical pointing at page 1.
Due to Google selecting page 2 as the canonical, the page is no longer ranking. For the main keyphrase a subcategory page is ranking poorly.
-
Sounds like you had the best of intentions by giving a non-JS fallback but that it came back to bite you
By the way, this gives evidence to something else that I'm always, always banging on about - Google 'can' render JS and do headless browser renders of a web-page when crawling, but they don't do this for everyone and they don't do it all the time (even for sites large enough to warrant such increased crawl resources). Rendered crawling is like 10x slower than basic source code scraping, and Google's mission is to index the web. Obviously they're not going to take a 10x efficiency hit on their MO for just anyone
Sorry about that, needed to get it off my chest as people are always linking articles saying "LOOK! Google can do JS crawling now we don't have to make sure our non-modified source code is solid any more". YES YOU DO - INTERNET
Ok done now. Let's focus on the query at hand
So you have this lovely page here which you have quoted: https://www.yoursclothing.de/kleider-grosse-groessen
It looks like this:
https://d.pr/i/QVNfKR.png (screenshot)
And you can scroll it down, and it infinitely loads - and you only see the bottom of the results (with no page changing button) when results run out, like this:
https://d.pr/i/XECK5Q.png (screenshot)
But when JS is disabled (or if you're fast like some kind of ninja cat, and you scroll down to the bottom of the page and find the button before the infinite load modifies the page-contents... but no mainly, just when JS is disabled) - then you get this button here:
https://d.pr/i/4Y9T9Y.png (screenshot)
... and when you click the button you end up on another page like this one:
https://www.yoursclothing.de/kleider-grosse-groessen?filter=true&view=32&categoryid=3440&page=2
... where you see "&page=2" at the end there, which is the parameter modifier which changes the active page of contents
Google are sometimes choosing the sub-pages of results as canonical when you guys don't want them to do that. You want to know why, what you have done isn't really working and what you could do instead. Got it
IMPORTANT Disclaimer: Google decides to rank pages for a number of reasons. If Google really does feel that sometimes, sub-pages of your results are 'better' (maybe they have better products on some of the paginated URLs, a better mix of products or products which fit Google's idea of fair pricing better than the default feed...) - there is no guarantee that 'correcting' this 'error' will result in the same rankings you have now. I just want to be 100% clear on that point, you might even lose some rankings if Google is really decided. They have told you, they are overriding your choice and usually there's some kind of reason on that. Sometimes it's a 'just past the post' decision where you can correct them and get basically the same rankings on other pages, other times you can lose rankings or they just won't shift it
Still with me? Ok let's look at what you did here:
-
On the page 2 (and page 3, and however many paginated URLs there are) you have a canonical tag pointing to the parent
-
And you have blocked the paginated URLs in robots.txt
I need to start by querying the fact that you say the page 2s (and assumedly other sub pages, like page 3s - e.g: https://www.yoursclothing.de/kleider-grosse-groessen?filter=true&view=32&categoryid=3440&page=3) - are blocked in robots.txt
DeepCrawl's indexation plugin doesn't see them as blocked:
https://d.pr/i/1cRShK.png (screenshot)
It says about the canonical tag, but it says nothing about the robots.txt at all!
So lets look at your robots.txt file:
https://www.yoursclothing.de/robots.txt
https://d.pr/i/YbyEGl.png (screenshot)
Nothing under # BlockSecureAreas handles pagination
But then under # NoIndex we have this entry:
Disallow: /filter=true
That _should _handle it, as pagination never occurs without a filter being applied (at least as far as I can see)
Indeed using this tool that I like, if I just paste in only the relevant parts:
https://d.pr/i/TVafTL.png (screenshot)
**We can see that the block is effective **(so DeepCrawl, your Chrome tool is probably wrong somehow - maybe they will see this new link, read and fix it!)
I did notice that there's some weird, unrequired indentation in your robots.txt file. Could that cause problems for Google? Could it, at the least - make Google think "well if there's syntax errors in here, maybe it's not worth obeying as it's probably wrong" - quite possibly
In my opinion that's not likely to be part of it
So if it's not that, then what!?
Well it could be that you're using robots.txt in the wrong capacity. Robots.txt _doesn't _stop Google from indexing web pages or tell them not to index web-pages (which is why it's funny that you have commented with "# NoIndex" - that's not what robots.txt does!)
Robots.txt dissuades Google from 'crawling' (but not indexing) a URL. If they can find signals from around the web (maybe backlinks) or if they believe the content on the URL is better via other means, they can (and will) still index a URL without necessarily crawling it. Robots.txt does not do, what Meta no-index does (which can be fired through the HTTP header, or via HTML)
Also, riddle me this if you will. If Google isn't allowed to crawl your URLs any more, how will it continue to find your canonical tags and find any new no-index tags? Why give Google a directive (canonical tags) on a URL which Google isn't allowed to crawl, and thus they will never see the directive? Sounds backwards to me
My proposed steps:
-
Read, understand and make your own decision on the "disclaimer" I wrote up earlier in this very post
-
If you still want to go ahead, enact the following (otherwise don't!)
-
Remove the robots.txt block so Google can crawl those URLs, or if that rule covers more than just the paginated URLs - leave it in place but add an exclusion for the paginated URLs so they may be crawled
-
Leave all the canonical tags on, good work. Maybe supplement these with a 'no-index' directive which would tell Google not to index those pages (there is no guarantee the canonical URL will replace the no-indexed URL, but you can try your luck - read the disclaimer)
-
Maybe serve status code 410, only to Googlebot (user-agent) when it visits the paginated URLs specifically - to try and encourage Google to think of those URLs as gone. Leave the contents alone, otherwise it's cloaking. Serve the same content to Google and users, but serve googlebot a 410 (gone) status
-
Before enacting the super-aggressive 410 stance, give Google plenty of time to swallow the new "no-index" tags on paginated URLs which weren't there before. A 410 whilst powerful, may cause these not to be read - so do give Google time (a few weeks IMO)
-
If you do adopt the 410 stance, one down-side will be that Google will think your JS fallback is a broken link and this will appear in Google Search Console. To make this less severe (though it probably still will happen), add no-follow directives to the pagination JS-fallback link / button where it appears
-
Once Google seems to have swallowed your wishes and seems to have removed most of these URLs from their index, THEN put the robots.txt block for paginated URLs back on (so it won't all happen again in the future)
-
Try removing the weird indentation formatting from your robots.txt file
-
Smile
Well, that's it from me. Thanks for this one, it was pretty interesting
-
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
-
How "Top" or "Best" are considered when in front of keyword
I would like to know if someone has proven info how google today counts words "Top" or "Best" when in front of main keywords you try to rank for. For example, if I have a keyword like "Restaurants in Madrid" and I optimize that page without using words "top" or "best" will it have good rankings for keywords "top restaurants in madrid" and "best restaurants in madrid" ? I suppose that google is smart enough to know that web page should be good ranked even without using those 2 words but would like to know percentage of my loss if I just exclude those words from title tag and other important onpage factors. I want to rank high for all the 3 combinations, with "top", with "best" and without it in front so searching for best solution. I plan just to add one of those words, for example "top" and hope that google will know that "top" = "best" 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | m2webs0 -
Ref = Canonical
Does it make sense to use the Canonical statement on pages on your web site that already have the correct URL. Or, should I ask, "Does it do any harm?"
On-Page Optimization | | JustInsulation0 -
Google cache tool help
This link is for the Ebay Google cache - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ebay.com&strip=1 I wanted to do the same for my homepage so I switched out the urls and it worked. When I try to get a different link in there such as mysite.com/category it wont work. I know my pages are indexed. Any ideas why it wont work for other pages?
On-Page Optimization | | EcommerceSite0 -
Difference between "And" and(!) "-"
I have a brand name "Smith and Jones". I am looking for the current best way to refer to the name in titles and text on my site. The manufactureres website is smithandjones.com . The H1 on their home page uses Smith & Jones. The 2 versions are used throughout their site. In a prior thread (http://www.seomoz.org/q/and-vs) the answer was to use nothing ie "smith jones". I was thinking that a "-" might be better since google says it tends to show a strong relationship between the 2 words. What do you think? Thanks Handcrafter
On-Page Optimization | | stephenfishman0 -
Google Instant Preview
Is there a way of having videos show up in google instant preview? Right now all I am getting is a blank space
On-Page Optimization | | casper4340 -
Canonical tag help
Hi, We have a product which is marketed by affiliates . Affiliates send referrals to our sale page by adding their affiliate IDs to our product page like http://www.mysite.com/products.php?ref= 12345. We want to avoid the content duplication impression to Google by using canonical tags but we are not clear about its use. Should we use it on http://www.mysite.com/products.php ( actual page) or we should create temporary pages for each referral id i.e http://www.mysite.com/products.php?ref= 12345 and then add canonical tags to all those pages linking to proper page i.e http://www.mysite.com/products.php ? Thanks, shaz
On-Page Optimization | | shaz_lhr0 -
Which Canonical URL Tag tag should we remove?
Hi guys, We are in the process of optimizing the pages of our new site. We have used the 'on page' report card feature in the Seomoz Pro Campaign analyser. On several pages we got the following result No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Number of Canonical tags <dl> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> </dl> I have looked into the source code of one of the pages http://www.sabaileela.co.uk/acupuncture-london and can see that there are two "canonical" tags. Does anyone have any advise on which one I should ask the developer to remove? I am not sure how to determine the relative importance of either link.
On-Page Optimization | | brian.james0 -
How to solve Rel Canonical issue?
I have created one campaign for my website on SEOmoz. I found Rel Canonical issue for following 2 URLs. I can not understand that, what is error with that? Can any one help me to solve it? http://vistastores.com/blog/?p=1 http://vistastores.com/blog/?page_id=2
On-Page Optimization | | CommercePundit0