Which is best of narrow by search URLs? Canonical or NOINDEX
-
I have set canonical to all narrow by search URLs. I think, it's not working well. You can get more idea by following URLs.
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?material_search=1328
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?finish_search=146
These kind of page have canonical tag which is pointing to following one.
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps
Because, it's actual page which I want to out rank.
But, all narrow by search URLs have very different products compare to base URLs. So, How can we say it duplicate one?
Which is best solution for it. Canonical or NOINDEX it by Robots?
-
It can be frustrating, but definitely give any change time to work (unless it seems like it's actually harming you). It can take Google a long time to re-index/re-cache deep pages, even if they visit your site daily.
-
Dr. Peter J. Meyers
After long discussion, I can conclude that, I have to go with NOINDEX. Let's see what happen in next 4 months. Then, I will re-evaluate it for better performance. As per your suggestion, it's quite tricky to change tactics on weekly bases and it may not help us more in same direction. Thanks for your valuable time on my question and prompt reply on each question.
-
That's pretty much typical search pagination. You can use NOINDEX on pages 2+, but Google currently recommends the rel=prev/next tags:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
The new tags seems to be working better over the past few months, but they can be tricky to implement, as they're different for every page (you have to create them dynamically). Historically, I've found that NOINDEX works pretty well for search pagination.
In this particular case, you wouldn't want to use canonical tags. Pagination is a bit unique. Unfortunately, even within internal search, different aspects can require different tags. It gets tricky fast these days.
-
Dr. Peter J. Meyers
Sorry, I'm a bit confused, because these sample URLs/situations seem very different from the ones you originally asked about.
I have changed URL structure in entire website and make it more SEO friendly.
but if your index exploded and you've got hundreds or thousands of thin pages, it may be worth doing in the short-term.
I have attached Index Status for Vista Stores screenshot to know more about it.
There are 12,000 product pages + 100 categories + 30 blog posts + 20 static pages + 1 home page = 12,151 pages are important for me and want to index and rank well.
Now, rest of pages are not duplicate ~ not near duplicate or true duplicate.
Just have a look at following pages.
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/p-2
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/p-3
Why should I set canonical tag pointing to base URL as follow. Because, page 2 and 3 does not contain any single product which is available on base page. So, Can we calculate as a duplicate? OR Will Google count as duplicate.
-
Sorry, I'm a bit confused, because these sample URLs/situations seem very different from the ones you originally asked about. Search filters vs. sorts vs. pagination all have potentially different solutions and implementing them on a large e-commerce site is very tricky.
Typically, rel=prev/next is better for pagination. For filters, you can use rel-canonical or NOINDEX, but it's often better to try to block some parameters from being crawled at all.
In the examples, you just gave, I suspect that rel-canonical may not have worked properly because Google saw the pages as being too differently. Honestly, though, for deep pages like this, it can also just come down to time. Sometimes, it takes Google quite a while to honor the tags.
There's no harm in trying NOINDEX, but I'd give it time. Don't change tactics every couple of weeks, or you could end up with even more mess.
A canonicalization strategy that covers your entire site is well beyond the scope of Q&A, I'm afraid. It's very tricky on large sites, and I've often found that the results have to be measured and strategies adjusted as you go. You can do it by the book and still have Google ignore it. It depends a lot on your internal architecture and link structure.
Ideally, control the crawl structure first. The less of these duplicates that are available for Google to crawl, the better. Canonical is often effective, but it's also a band-aid in situations like these. NOINDEX sometimes works better, but it's also a patch, too often.
You could use NOINDEX in concert with blocking some of the parameters in Google Webmaster Tools. I don't think it's an ideal long-term solution, but if your index exploded and you've got hundreds or thousands of thin pages, it may be worth doing in the short-term.
-
Dr. Peter J. Meyers
I'm coming back on this question after 5 months. I have implemented Canonical tag to following pages. But, It did not work well and indexed too many duplicate content.
Narrow by search:
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/manufacturer-boss
http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/manufacturer-boss/material-search-caressoftSorting:http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/dir-desc/order-positionNumber of products:http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/dir-desc/limit-100/order-positionPagination:http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs/shopby/dir-desc/limit-100/order-position/p-4Right now, I have removed Canonical tag to entire website and implement NOINDEX Follow meta robots.I am really confuse between Canonical and NOINDEX Follow.Can you give me exact solution for my current CMS structure?
-
I generally agree with Alan (although I think NOINDEX, FOLLOW is ok, since these pages are unlikely to have external/inbound links), but there's no perfect solution for these types of pages. They aren't exact duplicates, but they may look low value to search. Given our current tools, canonical may be your best choice.
If you're talking about a couple-dozen pages, it's no big deal, and you could leave them alone. If the different filters are spinning out 100s of variants, then I would control them somehow.
-
Canonical, dont use noindex in robots,
By using no index by robotes, you lose all the link juice of any link pointing to the no-indexed pages.
If the pages are not duplicates, then dont do anything, let them all rank.
-
I was reading a lot about this, and the better solution is using more than one method.
There is a post in SEO MOZ Blog from Lindsay that I think will answer your question: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/robot-access-indexation-restriction-techniques-avoiding-conflicts
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
-
Hreflang and canonical
Hi all, I'm hoping someone can help me solve this once and for all! I keep getting hreflang errors on our site crawls and I cannot understand why. Does anything here look off to you? Thank you! JGdWcqu
Technical SEO | | eGInnovations1 -
How many tiers are the best?
I am working the SEO from my website and I don't know how many Tiers I need. I have read a lot but people always says different things. What do you think? Thanks for your help friends! Regards, Carlos Zambrana
Technical SEO | | CarlosZambrana0 -
High DA url rewrite to your url...would it increase the Ranking of a website?
Hi, my client use a recruiting management tool called njoyn.com. The url of his site look like: www.example.njoyn.com. Would it increase his ranking if I use this Url above that point to njoyn domain wich has a high DA, and rewrite it to his site www.example.com? If yes how? Thanks
Technical SEO | | bigrat950 -
Rel Canonical question
Hi: I got a report indication 17 rel canonical notices. What does this mean in simple language and how do i go about fixing things?
Technical SEO | | Shaaps0 -
Long URL
I am using seomoz software as a trial, it has crawled my site and a report is telling me that the URL for my forum is to long: <dl> <dt>Title</dt> <dd>Healthy Living Community</dd> <dt>Meta Description</dt> <dd>Healthy life discussion forum chatting about all aspects of healthy living including nutrition, fitness, motivation and much more.</dd> <dt>Meta Robots</dt> <dd>noodp, noydir</dd> <dt>Meta Refresh</dt> <dd>Not present/empty</dd> <dd> 1 Warning Long URL (> 115 characters) Found about 17 hours ago <dl> <dt>Number of characters</dt> <dd>135 (over by 21)</dd> <dt>Description</dt> <dd>A good URL is descriptive and concise. Although not a high priority, we recommend a URL that is shorter than 75 characters.</dd> </dl> </dd> <dd> URL: http://www.goodhealthword.com/forum/reprogramming-health/welcome-to-the-forum-for-discussing-the-4-steps-for-reprogramming-ones-health/ The problem is when I check the page via edit or in the admin section of wordpress, the url is a s follows: http://www.goodhealthword.com/forum/ My question is where is I cannot see where this long url is located, it appears to be a valid page but I cant find it. Thanks Pete </dd> </dl>
Technical SEO | | petemarko0 -
Variables in URLS?
How much do variables in URLs hurt indexing of that page? I'm worried that with this huge string of variables that the pages won't get indexed. Here's what I think we should have: http://adomainname.com/New/Local/State/City/Make/Model/ Here's the current URL:http://adomainname.com/New/Local/MN/Bayport/Jeep/Liberty?curPage=1&pageResultSize=50&orderDir=DESC&orderBy=ModifiedDate&conditionId=1&makeId=7&modelId=141&stateProvinceName=Minnesota&mc=1
Technical SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Trailing Slashes In Url use Canonical Url or 301 Redirect?
I was thinking of using 301 redirects for trailing slahes to no trailing slashes for my urls. EG: www.url.com/page1/ 301 redirect to www.url.com/page1 Already got a redirect for non-www to www already. Just wondering in my case would it be best to continue using htacces for the trailing slash redirect or just go with Canonical URLs?
Technical SEO | | upick-1623910 -
Magento URL Question
Calling all Magento Kings out there! I'm working on a client' site - powered by magento. I'm looking to rewrite a lot of the URLs. I know there is the URL rewrite tool, but I think what I need to do may go beyond this. Typical example would be: Old URL - http://www.xxxxxxxx.co.uk/fabric/product/product-black-screen-print-and-silver-fabric.html New URL - http://www.xxxxxx.co.uk/fabric/product/silver I know that magento's URLs seem to be created through categories so wanted to double check with someone the best way to do this. Also, I've heard that 301 redirects of non www to www in the .htaccess has a knock on effect on discounts? All comments greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | PerchDigital0