Canonical URLs and Sitemaps
-
We are using canonical link tags for product pages in a scenario where the URLs on the site contain category names, and the canonical URL points to a URL which does not contain the category names. So, the product page on the site is like www.example.com/clothes/skirts/skater-skirt-12345, and also like www.example.com/sale/clearance/skater-skirt-12345 in another category. And on both of these pages, the canonical link tag references a 3rd URL like www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. This 3rd URL, used in the canonical link tag is a valid page, and displays the same content as the other two versions, but there are no actual links to this generic version anywhere on the site (nor external).
Questions:
1. Does the generic URL referenced in the canonical link also need to be included as on-page links somewhere in the crawled navigation of the site, or is it okay to be just a valid URL not linked anywhere except for the canonical tags?
2. In our sitemap, is it okay to reference the non-canonical URLs, or does the sitemap have to reference only the canonical URL? In our case, the sitemap points to yet a 3rd variation of the URL, like www.example.com/product.jsp?productID=12345. This page retrieves the same content as the others, and includes a canonical link tag back to www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. Is this a valid approach, or should we revise the sitemap to point to either the category-specific links or the canonical links?
-
Thanks. And since we've now implemented the aforementioned changes, I can give some findings back.
What we did: We changed our sitemap to point to the same canonical URLs as are referenced in the tags on our product pages (only one entry in sitemap per product).
What we didn't do: We didn't change the product pages themselves. They still have a canonical URL link reference, pointing to a URL with no category paths, which does not naturally occur in the navigation of the site (on the site, product pages all have category paths in the URL).
Findings: After submitting the new sitemap, the stats in Google Webmasters Tools indicate that almost all (> 96%) of our product pages are indexed. We believe that the pages were already indexed (for the most part) and now the sitemap is useful for metrics. From the timing, it's unlikely that the sitemap itself caused our index stats to get significantly better in just 1 day. Possible, but unlikely. In either case, since our product page URLs still reference canonical links which don't exist in the site's navigation, the evidence suggests that the canonical link itself is enough, and an actual navigation path to the canonical version of the page is not needed. That's just empirical evidence, we have no inside info on Google's methods, but this is what we believe now after monitoring.
-
With the canonical tag in place, I'm guessing that extra link would basically be ignored. It's probably harmless, but I'm not sure it will do anything. You could create an HTML "sitemap" (or even an XML sitemap) with the canonical URLs. It's not my first choice, but it at least would give Google an extra push.
-
We're in process of updating our canonical tagging and our sitemap, based on the feedback here. I have a question for the group though. Unfortunately we can't follow Andy Smith's suggestion of creating a "By Brand" navigation section on the site, since this web site is all private label (they sell all products under their own brand name).
One possible solution is to create a user-accessible site map page, with an "all products" paginated section, where all these product page URLs would be the canonical version.
But another possible solution, easier to implement, would be to have a user accessible link on each product page to the canonical version of itself. That is, when the user is on www.example.com/clothes/skirts/skater-skirt-12345, there would be a link to www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345, which would also be the URL specified in the canonical tag.
This seems redundant, but our results so far have borne out that the canonical tag pointing to a URL which doesn't really exist anywhere in the navigation doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. So, the thought is that a combination of the canonical tag, plus a "real" link to that same URL referenced in the canonical tag would better inform the search engine robots. But our hesitation is whether it should work for this link to be on the product page itself (e.g. the non-canonical version).
Any thoughts or feedback on approach?
-
Thanks for the responses. I've been monitoring for the past couple of weeks with the current sitemap and canonical structure, and so far the data seems consistent with the replies to this thread. In GWT, the sitemap stats show less than 1% of the URLs submitted are indexed so far. We have an action plan now to update the canonical structure and the sitemap to point to URLs which will be naturally crawled on the site as well.
-
There's no "have to" in most of these situations, but it boils down to this - the more canonical your canonical URL actually is, the better chance you have of Google honoring it. In other words, if you set a canonical tag but then never use that in internal links or your XML sitemap, odds are pretty good that Google may ignore the tag in some cases. You're basically saying "Hey, this URL is canonical! No, this one is! No, this one!" - it's a mixed message, and they're going to try to interpret it algorithmically.
I definitely think pointing to yet another version in the XML sitemap is a problem. Ideally, it would be great to unify your URLs, but if that's not possible, getting the canonical version in the sitemap would be a big help (and introducing yet another variant isn't good, so you'd kill two birds with one stone). As Andy said, if you could create some kind of internal link to the canonical version, even if it's not the main link, that could also help. I only hesitate on that one, because you don't want to end up with a weird, artificial linking structure (just creating links to have links).
Please note, this isn't necessarily a disaster the way you have it. Google could honor the tags properly and generally rank your site correctly. In my experience, though, it's a recipe for long-term problems, and it's worth fixing.
-
The purpose of the canonical tag is to tell Google which page to index first. So, on that note, I usually use the canonical tag on the strongest page in terms of pagerank, as this shows which page is linked to the best.
I'm also guessing you're using a framwork/platform like Magento, this can make linking quite difficult. I often suggest creating Brand pages, and link to the product page, the "3rd URL", from there. Brand pages also great for SEO, as most people search for brands first. Great place to get some fat head keywords in.
Also, make sure you put in the http:// as well, I think it is good practice to put in the full URL.
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 to deal with parameter URLs as primary internal links and not canonicals? Weird situation inside...
So I have a weird situation, and I was hoping someone could help. This is for an ecommerce site. 1. Parameters are used to tie Product Detail Pages (PDP) to individual categories. This is represented in the breadcrumbs for the page and the use of a categoryid. One product can thus be included in multiple categories. 2. All of these PDPs have a canonical that does not include the parameter / categoryid. 3. With very few exceptions, the canonical URL for the PDPs are not linked to. Instead, the parameter URL is to tie it to a specific category. This is done primarily for the sake of breadcrumbs it seems. One of the big issues we've been having is the canonical URLs not being indexed for a lot of the products. In some instances, the canonicals _are _indexed alongside parameters, or just parameter URLs are indexed. It's all very...mixed up, I suppose. My theory is that the majority of canonical URLs not being linked to anywhere on the site is forcing Google to put preference on the internal link instead. My problem? **I have no idea what to recommend to the client (who will not change the parameter setup). ** One of our Technical SEOs recommended we "Use cookies instead of parameters to assign breadcrumbs based on how the PDP is accessed." I have no experience this. So....yeah. Any thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alces0 -
Should I bother with a Video Sitemap?
Morning all, I've started a pretty aggressive Video content push in recent weeks. All our videos are on our YouTube channel. I decided to go with hosting the videos on YouTube based on my research on moz.com, especially considering the potential reach of the content on YouTube. What I'm finding is that the YouTube channel is doing great. We've hit 200 subscribers and 15K views in a little under a month. Wayyyy more than I could have ever hoped for. But the blog posts on our website are getting minimal traffic and no search visibility. That doesn't necessarily bother me, since the intention of our marketing campaign is to use YouTube to drive traffic to our website. So I guess my question is really more to do with optimizing the site with Video Sitemaps and best practices for Google Webmaster Tools. Right now we have YouTube videos embedded on blog posts like this one that have a time-stamp. But I've been working to create Gallery-style pages (no time-stamp) which would have multiple YouTube videos embedded on them like this one. These make it easier for visitors to watch multiple videos without needing to skip around to multiple blog posts. The challenge I'm running into is that when I go to submit a Video Sitemap to GWT I get an error saying that I have duplicate page content within the video sitemap. I've used several WP plugins to do this. It seems that when there is a video embedded on multiple URLs (pages + posts) the plugins will ignore the posts and only add the pages to the video sitemap. Here is my regular Sitemap Here is my video Sitemap I've attached a screenshot of my current Yoast Video SEO config if that's useful for reference. Does anyone have experience with using multiple sitemaps in GWT? I'm starting to think that maybe I shouldn't even bother with a video sitemap. Maybe those gallery-style pages should just go in the regular sitemap? Any thoughts or advice would be highly appreciated! Thanks llQfydA
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TMHoward860 -
Mixing static.htm urls and dynamic urls on a Windows IIS Server?
Hi all, We've had a website originally built using static html with .htm extensions ranking well in Google hence we want to keep those pages/urls. We are on a dedicated sever (Windows IIS). However our developer has custom made a new DYNAMIC section for the site which shows new added products dynamically and allows them to be booked online via shopping cart. We are having problems displaying them both on the same domain even if we put the dynamic section withing its own subfolder and keep the static htms in the root. Is it possible to have both function on IIS (even if they may have to function a little separately)? Does anyone have previous experience of this kind of issue or a way of making both work? What setup do we need to do on the dedicated server.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | emerald0 -
Transferring link juice from a canonical URL to an SEO landing page.
I have URLs that I use for SEM ads in Google. The content on those pages is duplicate (affiliate). Those pages also have dynamic parameters which caused lots of duplicate content pages to be indexed. I have put a canonical tag on the Parameter pages to consolidate everything to the canonical URL. Both the canonical URL and the Parameter URLs have links pointing to them. So as it stands now, my canonical URL is still indexed, but the parameter URLs are not. The canonical page is still made up of affiliate (duplicate) content though. I want to create an equivalent SEO landing page with unique content. But I'd like to do two things 1) remove the canonical URL from the index - due to duplicate affiliate content, and 2) transfer the link juice from the canonical URL over to the SEO URL. I'm thinking of adding a meta NoIndex, follow tag to the canonical tag - and internally linking to the new SEO landing page. Does this strategy work? I don't want to lose the link juice on the canonical URL by adding a meta noindex tag to it. Thanks in advance for your advice. Rob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | partnerf0 -
Should we use URL parameters or plain URL's=
Hi, Me and the development team are having a heated discussion about one of the more important thing in life, i.e. URL structures on our site. Let's say we are creating a AirBNB clone, and we want to be found when people search for apartments new york. As we have both have houses and apartments in all cities in the U.S it would make sense for our url to at least include these, so clone.com/Appartments/New-York but the user are also able to filter on price and size. This isn't really relevant for google, and we all agree on clone.com/Apartments/New-York should be canonical for all apartment/New York searches. But how should the url look like for people having a price for max 300$ and 100 sqft? clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100 or (We are using Node.js so no problem) clone.com/Apartments/New-York/Price/30/Size/100 The developers hate url parameters with a vengeance, and think the last version is the preferable one and most user readable, and says that as long we use canonical on everything to clone.com/Apartments/New-York it won't matter for god old google. I think the url parameters are the way to go for two reasons. One is that google might by themselves figure out that the price parameter doesn't matter (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687?hl=en) and also it is possible in webmaster tools to actually tell google that you shouldn't worry about a parameter. We have agreed to disagree on this point, and let the wisdom of Moz decide what we ought to do. What do you all think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peekabo0 -
Canonical URL Question
Hi Everyone I like to run this question by the community and get a second opinion on best practices for an issue that I ran into. I got two pages, Page A is the original page and Page B is the page with duplicate content. We already added** ="Page A**" />** to the duplicate content (Page B).** **Here is my question, since Page B is duplicate content and there is a link rel="canonical" added to it, would you put in the time to add meta tags and optimize the title of the page? Thanks in advance for all your help.**
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRTBA0 -
Rel Canonical Syntax
My IT department is getting ready to setup the rel canonical tag, finally. I took a look at the code on our test server and see that they are using a single quote in the tag syntax (see code block below). Should I be concerned? Will Google read those lines the same? <link rel='canonical' href='[http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits](view-source:http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits)' />VS. **versus** <link rel="canonical" href="[http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits](view-source:http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits)" />
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | costume0 -
Rel=Canonical URLs?
If I had two pages: PageA about Cats PageB about Dogs If PageA had a link rel=canonical to PageB, but the content is different, how would Google resolve this and what would users see if they searched "Cats" or "Dogs?" If PageA 301 redirected to PageB, (no content in PageA since it's 301 redirected), how would Google resolve this and what would users see if they searched "Cats" or "Dogs?"
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | visionnexus0