No Follow & Rel Canon for Product Filters
-
Our site uses Canonicals to address duplicate content issues with product/facet filtering.
example: www.mysite.com/product?color=blue
Relcanon= www.mysite.com/product
However, our site is also using no follow for all of the "filters" on a page (so all ?color=, etc. links are no follow). What is the benefit of utilizing the no follow on the filters if we have the rel canon in place?
Is this an effort to save crawl budget? Are we giving up possible SEO juice by having the no follow and not having the crawler get to the canonical tag and subsequently reference the main page?
Is this just something we just forget about? I hope we're not giving up SEO juice by
-
Thanks, Chris.
We should have no external links pointing to the URLs with the additional product parameters.
Are we losing any SEO juice for our internal pages, with the internal links with the additional parameters attached being no follow.
For example.
For this page: https://www.remke.com/aluminum-strain-relief-cord-grips/
All of the internal links to the "filtered" products/options are marked no follow. ex: https://www.remke.com/aluminum-strain-relief-cord-grips/?cordgriptype=45%20Degree (no follow when linked from the facet filtering on the lefthand side of the site).
But the page itself: https://www.remke.com/aluminum-strain-relief-cord-grips/?cordgriptype=45%20Degree has a canonical pointing back to https://www.remke.com/aluminum-strain-relief-cord-grips/.
Are we losing any SEO juice from the internal traffic utilizing the filters or is it a moot point and we should just leave it how it is?
Thanks again for the help.
-
Maybe there were external links pointing filter pages, so having a canonical tags on them pushed the juice to the canonical page? Have you looked to see if you have backlinks pointing to those pages? Even if there currently are not, it seems it could happen. So, I'd say it's better to keep both.
-
Hi, Chris
Yes, we are using no follow on the links pointing to "?color=" pages. The pages themselves are using rel canon pointing back to the main URL without the "?color=".
-
"site is also using no follow for all of the "filters" on a page (so all ?color=, etc. links are no follow)."
For clarification, do you mean you're using nofollows on links pointing to "?color=" pages or links on/from "?color=" pages?
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
-
Shopify Canonicals for Tagged Filters
I've been researching this topic endlessly and thought I had arrived at a solution but Screaming Frog indicates my solution was not successful. Problem: I used tags to filter my collections pages. The result, I discovered, was the creation of dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds, of additional collection URLs for each possible permutation of tag filters. I would like to make the collection page URL, with no tag filters, the canonical. Proposed Solution: I found the following code described somewhere as the solution: {% if template contains 'collection' and current_tags %} {% else %} {% endif %} However, I crawled my site with Screaming Frog and found that the canonical link element is still listed as the URL with the tags included. The crawler does recognizes the "noindex" instruction. Any ideas on what the best move is here?
Technical SEO | | vgusvg0 -
Duplicate content through product variants
Hi, Before you shout at me for not searching - I did and there are indeed lots of threads and articles on this problem. I therefore realise that this problem is not exactly new or unique. The situation: I am dealing with a website that has 1 to N (n being between 1 and 6 so far) variants of a product. There are no dropdown for variants. This is not technically possible short of a complete redesign which is not on the table right now. The product variants are also not linked to each other but share about 99% of content (obvious problem here). In the "search all" they show up individually. Each product-variant is a different page, unconnected in backend as well as frontend. The system is quite limited in what can be added and entered - I may have some opportunity to influence on smaller things such as enabling canonicals. In my opinion, the optimal choice would be to retain one page for each product, the base variant, and then add dropdowns to select extras/other variants. As that is not possible, I feel that the best solution is to canonicalise all versions to one version (either base variant or best-selling product?) and to offer customers a list at each product giving him a direct path to the other variants of the product. I'd be thankful for opinions, advice or showing completely new approaches I have not even thought of! Kind Regards, Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Is the seomoz on-page factor :Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical working properly?
I have a word press site with a rel canonical plug in. The rel="canonical" href= is there and the url in there works and goes to the actual page.So why does the seomoz keep giving the warning: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Technical SEO | | CurtCarroll0 -
Canonical solution for query strings?
Greetings, The Hotel company where I'm employed uses query strings in it's url's to track customers. The query strings are integrated into our property management system, and they help identify who we need to pay commissions to, so they aren't going anywhere. While I understand that session variables could have been a better solution, I sort of inherited this problem. The issue I'm running into is that my Webmaster tools picks up these query strings as actual url's. So for instance: www.url.com/index.php?P_SOURCE=WBFQ Seems like a duplicate page of my root, and like wise for all my other pages that use our booking widget. So, Is there a canonical solution to this issue? or would 301/302's be the only solution. Also, we may have 10 different but specific query strings to put into our urls. Would the 301/302 approach cause any server issues for say 10 pages? So 10 pages x 10 access codes = a lot of redirects. Thanks in advance, Cyril
Technical SEO | | Nola5040 -
Will rel=canonical cause a page to be indexed?
Say I have 2 pages with duplicate content: One of them is: http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage This page is the one I want to be indexed on google (domain rank already built, etc.) http://www.originalpage.com is more of an ease of use domain, primarily for printed material. If both of these sites are identical, will rel=canonical pointing to "http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage" cause it to be indexed? I do not plan on having any links on my site going to "http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage", they would instead go to "http://www.originalpage.com".
Technical SEO | | jgower0 -
Robots.txt and canonical tag
In the SEOmoz post - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/robot-access-indexation-restriction-techniques-avoiding-conflicts, it's being said - If you have a robots.txt disallow in place for a page, the canonical tag will never be seen. Does it so happen that if a page is disallowed by robots.txt, spiders DO NOT read the html code ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Rel-canonical tag
Hi, I'm having some confusion with the rel-canonical tag. A few months ago we implemented the rel-canonical tag because we had many errors specifically duplicate page content come upon the SEOmoz web app (mostly because we use tracking code). I had asked what to do about this and was advised by the SEOmoz web app to implement the rel-canonical tag. However, when I'm working on the Keyword Optimizer Tool, it always checks off that I'm using the rel-canonical tag improperly, and then when I go into our sites' CMS for that page and uncheck "Use Canonical URL", the keyword optimizer tool up's my grade for that correction/that I've made an improvement. So my question is if the page I'm working on is the one I want search engines to find, should I not be using the Canonical URL tag? Should the Canonical URL tag only be used on URL's with the tracking code?
Technical SEO | | aircyclemegan0 -
Rel=Canonical to Rewrite or original URL?
Working with a large number of duplicate pages due to different views of products. Rewriting URLs for the most linked page. Should rel=canonical point to the rewritten URL or the actual URL? Is there a way to see what the rewritten URL is within the crawl data? I was taking the approach of rewriting only the base version of each page and then using a rel=canonical on the duplicate pages. Can anyone recommend a better or cleaner approach? Haven't seen too many articles on retail SEO when faced with a less than optimized CMS. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | AmsiveDigital0