What is the best canonical url to use for a product page?
-
I just helped a client redesign and launch a new website for their organic skin care company (www.hylunia.com). The site is built in Magento which by default creates MANY urls for each product. Which of these two do you think would be the best to use as the canonical version?
http://www.hylunia.com/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution
or http://www.hylunia.com/products/face-care/facial-moisturizers/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution ?I'm leaning on the latter, because it makes sense to me to have the breadcrumbs match the url string, and also it seems having more keywords in the url would help. However, it's obviously a very long url, and there might be some benefits to using the shorter version that I'm not aware of.
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts.
Best,
Daniel
-
I agree with Nakul - your best bet here is the name of the product right after the domain name - clean, short and straight to the point.
I find the canonical urls especially useful when you need the parameters in the url in order to provide some functionality such as highlight the link in the navigation etc., but it doesn't really have much impact on the way the product is displayed - in this case I always use the shortest possible version of the url as the canonical.
Later, when you create your sitemap, make sure that you also use the shortest versions to be included in it - so that you stay consistent with your decision and make it clear to the search engines what version should be indexed.
-
Based on what I see I would recommend you use this one: http://www.hylunia.com/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution Here are my reasons: 1. http://www.hylunia.com/products/face-care/facial-moisturizers/pure-hyaluronic-acid-solution is way too long. 2. It 2 levels down in terms of folders. 3. You already have the category names in the Page Title as well as the Breadcrumbs, so you are not really missing out on the On-page by having the category names removed from the URL. That's just my 2c. I 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
-
If there any SEO downside in using Google+ brand page for news curation?
We are thinking about using our Google+ brand page to curate relevant news from different sources and organize them in Collections. We are confident that we can generate backlinks, followers, and engagement with this strategy. My fear is to suffer some penalty due to the fact that will not be sharing our own content. We will be redirecting the clicks to the website of the owner of the content; using Start a Fire tracking links (https://startafire.com/). Since I am not aware of any Google+ brand page that executed this curated news strategy with success, I decided to post this question. Our goal is to get high ranks for our Google+ brand page for searches to our brand name and for the name of the Collections. BTW, our curated news posts will be automated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | grinseo0 -
Mass uploading low quality product pages
Hi Mozzers! I have a question on mass uploading low quality product pages We have a huge catalogue of products and our product managers are looking to mass reference 17,000 new products quickly on the website. Obviously, this will mean content will somehow have to be made unique - which would take a huge amount of resource. Apart from this issue, will adding this many new product pages in one go be bad for SEO? If we also do manage to make the content unique, but not high quality - we'll have 17,000 new low quality product pages - will this reduce our domain authority? Becky
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey1 -
Use Nonindex or Canonical on product tags of a e-commerce site
I run a e-commerce site and we have many product tags. These product tags come up as "Duplicate Page Content" when Moz does it's crawl. I was wondering if I should use Nonindex or Canonical? The tags all go to the same product when used so I figure I would just nonindex them but was wondering what's the best for SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EmmettButler1 -
Need to change 1 million page URLs
Hey all, I have a community site where users are uploading photos and videos. Launched in 2003, back then it wasn't such a bad idea to use keywords/tags in the URLs, so I did that. All my content pages (individual photo/video) are looking like this: www.domain.com/12345-kw1-kw2-kw3-k4-k5 and so on. Where the 12345 is the unique content ID and the rest are keywords/tags added by the uploader. I would like to get rid of of the keywords after the ID in the URL. My site is well coded, so this can be easily done by changing a simple function, so my content page URLs become this: www.domain.com/ID What is the best course of action? 301 the KW URLs to non-KW version? Canonical? I really want to do this the proper way. Any advice is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mlqsko0 -
301 Externally Linked, But Non-Producing Pages, To Productive Pages Needing Links?
I'm working on a site that has some non-productive pages without much of an upside potential, but that are linked-to externally. The site also has some productive pages, light in external links, in a somewhat related topic. What do you think of 301ing the non-productive pages with links to the productive pages without links in order to give them more external link love? Would it make much of a difference? Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Intra-linking to pages with a different Canonical url ?
Hello Moz Community! I'm hoping to get some advice around intra-linking practices and the benefits when a page that is being linked to has a different canonical tag than it's own URL. Confused? Allow me to elaborate. Scenario: Background: Ecommerce Company is trying to increase its organic ranking for key, broad terms in the cycling industry. Ecommerce company is trying to rank its category pages for a main term. To help this, the company focusing on increasing the quality of its intra-linking structure (the links and anchor texts that link to another page within the site). Example goal: to have it's Road Cassettes category page rank for 'Road Cassettes' Company's 'cassettes' main category page is here: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/ And the company uses filtered navigation logic to drill down into 'road cassettes' specifically: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/?page_no=1&fq=ATR_RoadBiking:True SEOs are instructed to include occasional links back to this page, with SEO friendly anchor text, to help strengthen it's authority for the main term. The Issue / Question: Main category URL: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/ Road Cassettes category URL: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/?page_no=1&fq=ATR_RoadBiking:True Road Cassettes Canonical URL: /Components/Drivetrain/Cassettes/ The canonical URL of the filtered Road Cassettes category is its main category URL. Will Company be able to effectively rank its Road Cassettes category URL for 'Road Cassettes' if the canonical URL is the main category? Should the canonical URL not be the main category? OR Will increasing the intra-linking to the Road Cassettes URL help the main category URL rank for 'Road Cassettes' - by passing all it's authority?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ray-pp0 -
Does rel=canonical fix duplicate page titles?
I implemented rel=canonical on our pages which helped a lot, but my latest Moz crawl is still showing lots of duplicate page titles (2,000+). There are other ways to get to this page (depending on what feature you clicked, it will have a different URL) but will have the same page title. Does having rel=canonical in place fix the duplicate page title problem, or do I need to change something else? I was under the impression that the canonical tag would address this by telling the crawler which URL was the URL and the crawler would only use that one for the page title.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | askotzko0 -
From an SEO Standpoint, which is better for my product category URLs?
With our e-commerce store, we can customize the URL for the product categories, so we could have: http://www.storename.com/product-category-keywords/ or http://www.storename.com/product-category-keywords.html From an SEO standpoint (or even from a "trying to get links" standpoint), which would be better to have? I feel like having a *.html category page would be easier for link building, but that's just my personal feelings. Side Note: Our product pages are: http://www.storename.com/product-name.html Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fenderseo0