Real impact of canonical links?
-
I am responsible for 2 e-commerce websites.
SEO Moz and Google Web Master tools both inform me regularly that on both sites there are many instances of duplicate titles, headings, decriptions and page content. Obviously from an SEO point of view I am more than a little concerned about this!
Out product pages struggle to perform strongly despite the fact that our website is of a decent quality and we are leaders in our field. Our competitors rank above us when they add a product page, whereas we normal flit in between 8-10 or on the 2nd SERP.
I know it is hard without viewing the site, but is duplicate content likely to be a strong, leading factor in this?
I think it is, but want to put together a business case to spend the cash to sort it out....just need someone confirmation that this is worth sorting as a priority.
Here are 2 examples of what I mean:
1) Category pages
www.exampledomain.co.uk/category1.aspx
We have filters on our category page (so the customer can sort products based on their price, colour, size etc.). When filters are used a new URL is generared.
- www.exampledomain.co.uk/category1.aspx?prices=0||10
- www.exampledomain.co.uk/category1.aspx?prices=10||20
The content, titles, description is the same although the links are different.
Do I need to set up a canonical tag on the page that reads:
2) Product pages
Product pages on the websites have different URLs depending on how to arrive on them.
You get 1 URL if you navigated to the page via the website navigation, but you get another different URL if you used the website search functionality to find the page.
Example:
Search link: www.exampledomain.co.uk/category1/Product1.aspx
Navigation link: www.exampledomain.co.uk/12345/category1/Product1.aspx
Again, do I need to set up a canonical tag for 1 of these link types so that the link benefit is not shared over 2 pages?
Any feedback would be welcome! At the moment the ability to add canonical tags is locked down by our CMS (I know, rubbish!)...so website development would be needed - hence the need for a business case!
-
Great points Dr Pete.
-
Especially post-Panda, duplicates can create a real mess. At best, it's a matter of dilution. The more pages in you have in Google's index that are "thin", the more thinly your internal link-juice (authority, basically) is spread. So, each page just gets less of it. In extreme cases, though, the entire site can suffer.
Canonicalization is tricky, and it's tough to be 100% sure from sample URLs, but my gut reacionts:
(1) Yes, I think you could safely use rel=canonical here. It's slightly odd, since these search pages are actually showing different lists of products, but your only real choices are rel=canonical or blocking the "prices=" parameter in Google Webmaster Tools. You could NOINDEX anything with "prices=" in it as well. I think canonical will work, though.
(2) This is definitely a case where you should use rel=canonical. There are true duplicates. Actually, the best case here is not to create these URLs, but I realize that's not always an option.
You could use GWT for #1, if development is an issue, but to solve (2) you're going to need some kind of page-level directive (like rel=canonical). There's no good way to get around the coding.
It's hard to gauge the impact, but I've definitely seen cases where the consequences of large scale duplicates were severe, and where large ranking/traffic improvements (as much as 3X, although it's not usually that dramatic) have occurred when the problem was fixed. To be aware that it's not instantaneous. It can take a few weeks to really see the impact.
-
Thanks for your feedback Nakul - glad I'm on the right track. The world of canonical links can certainly strain the old brain cells!
Don't suppose you have any other tips on how I can boost my product pages or any other things I should watch out for when employing canonical links across the entire site?
-
Yes, you are 100% on the right track. You do need the canonical tags in place ASAP. Both on the category and the product level.
And yes, duplicate content is also a very important consideration, so I would definitely suggest creating a business case to get unique copy done for each of your pages.
Both of these points are high priority and I am sure that's why you posted the question...to confirm. You are right.
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
-
SEO Impact & Google Impact On Removing Product From Category Page for Ecommerce Site
Hello Experts, For my Ecommerce site previously I was showing products at category pages i.e. first all subcategories name after that list all products of all subcateogries. That also approx per category 500 products via load more feature. My query is now I am planning to show products only at Product Listing Page and not on Category pages so what will be SEO impact and how google will treat this? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Johny123450 -
Canonical Query
If Google decides to ignore your canonical and indexes numerous versions, does that count as duplicate content? We've got a large amount of canonicals ignored by Google, so I'm just trying to gauge if it's an issue or not.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThomasHarvey0 -
Infographic links were good?
I submit infographic to visual.li, source and a little description. Are these links were good for website link profile? And can I submit same inforgraphi to other websites? http://visual.ly/divya-ashwagandha-churna
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bondhoward0 -
Should I remove all vendor links (link farm concerns)?
I have a web site that has been around for a long time. The industry we serve includes many, many small vendors and - back in the day - we decided to allow those vendors to submit their details, including a link to their own web site, for inclusion on our pages. These vendor listings were presented in location (state) pages as well as more granular pages within our industry (we called them "topics). I don't think it's important any more but 100% of the vendors listed were submitted by the vendors themselves, rather than us "hunting down" links for inclusion or automating this in any way. Some of the vendors (I'd guess maybe 10-15%) link back to us but many of these sites are mom-and-pop sites and would have extremely low authority. Today the list of vendors is in the thousands (US only). But the database is old and not maintained in any meaningful way. We have many broken links and I believe, rightly or wrongly, we are considered a link farm by the search engines. The pages on which these vendors are listed use dynamic URLs of the form: \vendors<state>-<topic>. The combination of states and topics means we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage 🙂 So, not good.</topic></state> We understand that this model is broken. Our plan is to simply remove these pages (with the list of vendors) from our site. That's a simple fix but I want to be sure we're not doing anything wring here, from an SEO perspective. Is this as simple as that - just removing these page? How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs? For example, I could spend effort making sure that \vendors\California- <topic>(and for all states) goes to a general "topic" page (which still has relevance, but won't have any vendors listed)</topic> I know there is no distinct answer to this, but what expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO? Anyway, before I go down this path I thought I'd check here in case I miss something. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkWill0 -
Unpaid Followed Links & Canonical Links from Syndicated Content
I have a user of our syndicated content linking to our detailed source content. The content is being used across a set of related sites and driving good quality traffic. The issue is how they link and what it looks like. We have tens of thousands of new links showing up from more than a dozen domains, hundreds of sub-domains, but all coming from the same IP. The growth rate is exponential. The implementation was supposed to have canonical tags so Google could properly interpret the owner and not have duplicate syndicated content potentially outranking the source. The canonical are links are missing and the links to us are followed. While the links are not paid for, it looks bad to me. I have asked the vendor to no-follow the links and implement the agreed upon canonical tag. We have no warnings from Google, but I want to head that off and do the right thing. Is this the right approach? What would do and what would you you do while waiting on the site owner to make the fixes to reduce the possibility of penguin/google concerns? Blair
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BlairKuhnen0 -
One Way Links vs Two Way Links
Hi, Was speaking to a client today and got asked how damaging two way links are. i.e. domaina.com links to domainb.com and domainb.com links back to domaina.com. I need a nice simple layman's explanation of if/how damaging they are compared to one way links. And please don't answer with you lose link juice as I have a job explaining link juice.... I am explaining things to a non techie! Thank you!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnW-UK0 -
How to promote some links on google
Hi our site is http://www.mycarhelpline.com If people search on our site in Google by typing - Mycarhelpline they see links - why mycarhelpline, contact us and about us how can we put some other key pages by replacing above pages
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Modi0 -
Linking to bad sites
Hi, I just have a quick question. Is it very negative to link to "bad" sites, such as online pharmacies, dating, adult sites, that sort of stuff? How much does linking to a "bad" site negatively affect a "good" site? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | salvyy0