Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
-
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be.
I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation.
My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation.
I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave -
In the past i have seen conanicals take up to 5-6 weeks. My only other advice is to monitor the amount of indexed queries you have in Google. If you know you started with 100+ and over the past three weeks it has dropped down to 50, then it is slowly taking affect (once again, using the site search). If you see the opposite and you notice no change, then perhaps the tag is still incorrect or some other issue?
I can't promise that all of the queried URLs will become un-indexed but the most important thing is the base page ranks the highest when searching.
-
Hi Kyle
Thanks for the response. That is a good point regarding the site:www.... search and in fact all of the results used the correct canonical url with the cached versions showing the same corrected format. The last time the sitemap was downloaded was yesterday so maybe my concern shouldn't be that great. What I'm seeing in webmaster tools does include some of the older content with the parameters but if the SERP's are showing updated versions then maybe that will be flushed out. I am just under the impression that if its in Google Webmaster then its part of Googles overall point of view of your site.
The canonical url updates have been fixed for about 3 weeks.
-
First i would check to see if the update you made to the pages have been recognized by Google. You can do this simply by doing a "site:www.domain.com" search, then view the cached page. If you find that it has not been recognized, you can always resubmit a new xml sitemap to your webmaster tools. In the past i have seen this help speed up the process.
How long ago did you make these updates?
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
-
301 to canonical
I'm doing some work on a website, they have a very popular product search where you enter a specific part code (6 digits) and it takes you to the product. So for example Search: 123456 Page redirected to domain.com/product/123456 With a canonical of domain.com/product/this-is-the-product-title Would it be beneficial to redirect from /product/123456 to /product/this-is-the-product-title Google seems to be indexing both versions. For some of these products a reasonable amount of links are built.
On-Page Optimization | | ThomasHarvey0 -
Rel Canonical help
Is it possible to confirm this to me please? My understanding of the rel canonical tag was to tell google of duplicate content? so for instance product 1
On-Page Optimization | | TeamacPaints
www.ourdomain.co.uk/products/category/subcategory/theproduct1 Product 1a
www.ourdomain.co.uk/products/category/subcategory/theproduct1a same content just a different colour would be rel canonical'd to Product 1 as thats the main product, is my understanding correct? Now here is what I have discovered. www.ourdomain.co.uk/products/category/subcategory/theproduct1 has a rel canonical tag that reverts back to www.ourdomain.co.uk/products/ which isn't optimized as such its just a generic catalog page. This is inccorect and google will dismiss the actial product and revert to the generic catalog page? any help would be great.0 -
URL Path. What is better for SEO
Hello Moz people, Is it better for SEO to have a URL path like this: flowersite.com/anniversary_flowers/dozen_roses OR flowersite.com/dozen_roses Is it better to have the full trail of pages in the URL?
On-Page Optimization | | CKerr0 -
Can Sitemap Be Used to Manage Canonical URLs?
We have a duplicate content challenge that likely has contributed to us loosing SERPs especially for generic keywords such as "audiobook," "audiobooks," "audio book," and "audio books." Our duplicate content is on two levels. 1. The first level is at our web store, www.audiobooksonline.com. Audiobooks are sometimes published in abridged, unabridged, on compact discs, on MP3 CD by the same publisher. In this case we use the publisher description of the story for each "flavor" = duplicate content. Can we use our sitemap to identify only one "flavor" so that a spider doesn't index the others? 2. The second level is that most online merchants of the same publisher's audio book use the same description of the story = lots of duplicate content on the Web. In that we have 11,000+ audio book titles offered at our Web store, I expect Google sees us as having lots of duplicated (on the Web) content and devalues our site. Some of our competitors who rank very high for our generic keywords use the same publisher's description. Any suggestions on how we could make our individual audio book title pages unique will be greatly appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | lbohen0 -
How should I fix my short meta descriptions?
I recently added meta descriptions to several community-supplied pages for our open source website http://spree.tw/N53HuO Google Webmaster Tools is complaining/warning that the meta descriptions are too short. The descriptions are being supplied by our users and they typically do not lend themselves to anything much longer than what is being entered already. I was thinking of adding some text to the end of the meta description. Something like "This is one of many third party extensions for Spree supplied free of charge by our community" or something else like that. Is it acceptable practice to reuse a snippet in your meta description like this? Do you suggest other alternatives? Since meta description doesn't affect page rank can I use terms that I'm trying to rank for on my home page without cannibalizing my link juice? TIA, Sean
On-Page Optimization | | schof0 -
Changing Ttile Tags & 301's
I recently began re-optimizing my title tags site wide. Could this cause 301 redirects and the loss of backlinks?
On-Page Optimization | | BeautyStop0 -
3 Different Home Page URL's Being Indexed?
Hello Everyone! I own a dog supplies eCom site on the x-cart platform. I recently upgraded to 4.4 version about 3 weeks ago and am noticing 3 different home page URL's getting indexed and ranked: /
On-Page Optimization | | k9byron
/home.php
/home.php?cat= I dont know why this is happening and I dont claim to be an expert SEO but know this cant be good! I am seeing high rankings on certain terms for all 3 URL's. Has anyone seen this before and can anyone give me any feedback on this and how it may be effecting my sites ranking in the future? Thanks in advance!
Byron-0 -
Is it worth changing urls with underscores?
A few pages on one of my sites have underscores linking keywords rather than hyphens (keywords_and_keyword rather than keyword-and-keyword). Possibly from a time before I knew hyphens were preferred... One of the pages ranks well, and drives a good amount of traffic. The others do not do so well, but are still within the top 10 landing pages for the site. Is it worth me changing the underscores to hyphens (setting up 301 redirects first of course) or doesn't it make that much difference?
On-Page Optimization | | Jingo010