Canonical referencing and aspx
-
The following pages of my website all end up at the same place:
http://example.com/seo/Default.aspx
http://example.com/SEO/
http://example.com/seo
http://example.com/sEo
http://example.com/SeObut we have a really messy URL structure throughout the website.
I would like to have a neat URL structure, including for offline marketing so customers can easily memorize or even guess the URL.
I'm thinking of duplicating the pages and canonical referencing the original ones with the messy URLs instead of a 301 redirect (done for each individual page of course), because the latter will likely result in a traffic drop. We've got tens of thousands of URLs; some active and some inactive.
Bearing in mind that thousands of links already point in to the site and even a small percentage drop in traffic would be a serious problem given low industry margins and high marketing spend, I'd love to hear opinions of people who have encountered this issue and found it problematic or successful.
@randfish to the rescue. I hope.
-
Are those URLs (or URLs like them - I realize they're just examples) actually being used in internal links, or are you just saying that they all resolve? The case-sensitivity thing isn't a huge issue, and the canonical tag would work well for that. Otherwise, you'd have to 301-redirect every possibly version (and 98% of them will never be used).
I'd really focus on fixing the internal links first, and then 301 or canonical the versions you used internally (or that have inbound/external links). For the "Default.aspx" version, I think 301s are a little better, but ASPX can be a bit persistent about that, so it's a bit hard to advise. Sometimes, you are constrained by the platform.
The biggest difference is that a 301-redirect will also redirect people, so they'll be more likely to link to the proper version. The canonical tag only impacts Google. Both work reasonably well, though, and do pass on most link-juice if used properly.
-
Thanks! That's helpful of you!
-
Hi Gutam,
Based on your provided URL's it seems that your website is built using .NET, as your mentioned problem is common problem for these type of sites.
Assuming that your website server is on IIS, it would be best to install both the IIS toolkit and the URL rewriter on your server.
Use the IIS SEO toolkit to first identify all the technical SEO problems and then the URL rewriter to redirect and create your search friendly URL's.
Dave Sottimano (from Distilled) has written a good post on using IIS SEO toolkit for site analysis -http://www.seomoz.org/blog/what-every-seo-should-know-about-iis
Here's one pretty good post (abit outdated) on how to deal with the most common URL errors using the URL rewriter - http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/04/20/tip-trick-fix-common-seo-problems-using-the-url-rewrite-extension.aspx
Good Luck!
Vahe
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
-
Canonical and Alternate Advice
At the moment for most of our sites, we have both a desktop and mobile version of our sites. They both show the same content and use the same URL structure as each other. The server determines whether if you're visiting from either device and displays the relevant version of the site. We are in a predicament of how to properly use the canonical and alternate rel tags. Currently we have a canonical on mobile and alternate on desktop, both of which have the same URL because both mobile and desktop use the same as explained in the first paragraph. Would the way of us doing it at the moment be correct?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JH_OffLimits3 -
Original Source Tag or Canonical Tag for News Publishers?
I have been sourcing content from a news publisher who is my partner for publishing content online. My website deals with sourcing content from a couple of websites. I did use a canonical tag pointing towards the respective syndicated source but I have not seen traffic for those articles. I did some research and found out that Google does have a tag for news publishers which is the "original-source" tag which helps news publishers to give proper credit for their work. Here's a link to the official word by Google" https://news.googleblog.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html Although Google has officially stated that the "syndication-source" tag has been replaced by the "canonical" tag. However, there is no mention about the "original-source" tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Starcom_Search
Can I still use the "original-source" tag to syndicate content from my partner site instead of the "canonical" tag? P.S.: The reason why I am not convinced with the use of the canonical tag is because:
1. As per what Google says, duplicate content won't harm my website unless it is spam. (And since we are rightfully content from our partner'website and showcasing it to a larger audience by hosting it on our website as well, we are thereby not indulging in any unethical practices) 2. The canonical tag could possibly hamper my crawl bandwidth issues as it would essentially need the crawler to crawl the whole page to figure out that the canonical is present, post which any possible valuation that my site could have garnered gets lost.3. Moreover, since I am from the news, media and publication industry, content republication is a widely accepted practice and in such cases simply including a link to the original source of the article or using the original source tag should suffice, That being mentioned, I do not want to go ahead without taking a second opinion about this. Kindly help me to resolve this issue.0 -
Self referencing canonicals and paginated content - advice needed
Hi, I help manage a large site that uses a lot of params for tracking, testing and to help deal with paginated content e.g. abc.com/productreview?page=2. The paginated review content correctly uses rel next and rel prev tags to ensure we get the value of all of the paginated review content that we have. The volume of param exclusions I need to maintain in Google & Bing Webmaster tools is getting clunky and frustrating. I would like to use self referencing canonicals, which would make life a lot easier. Here's my issue: If I use canonicals on the review pages the paginated content urls would also use the same canonical e.g. /productreview?page=2 pointing to /productreview I believe I am going to lose the value of those reviews, even though they use the rel next rel prev tags. BTW airbnb do this - do they know something I don't, don't care about the paginated reviews, or are they doing it incorrectly, see http://d.pr/i/14mPU Is my assertion above correct about losing the value of the paginated reviews if I use self referencing canonicals? Any thoughts on a solution to clearing up the param problem or do I have to live with it? Thanks in advance, Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
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 -
Is it bad I have a cluster of canonical urls that 301 re-direct?
Just went through a migration. We have a group of canonical URLs that are NOT the preferred url, but 301 re-direct to the preferred URL. Does this essentially "break even" and the incorrect canonical URL becomes obsolete? And/or would this be considered potentially bad and confusing for bots?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lunavista-comm0 -
Does a non-canonical URL pass link juice?
Our site received a great link from URL A, which was syndicated to URL B. But URL B is canonicalized to URL A. Does the link on URL B pass juice to my site? (See image below for a visual representation of my question) zgbzqBy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Choice1 -
Circular Canonical/Redirect
My client's site has an issue (see below) and I'm wondering how much it could be affecting crawlability. Has anyone seen a major rankings bump after fixing something like this? 1. In each page the rel=canonical is pointing to the http version of the page while the http version is redirecting to the https version. Basically, a circular redirect-canonical loop is occurring.2. The sitemap.xml is also referring to the http version of the pages rather than the https.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | elenaroi0