Canonicalization - Some advice needed :)
-
Hi guys,
To be honest, it's a little bit embarrassing to throw out this question but it's one of the weakest points of knowledge at the moment for me.
I've tried to get a grasp of canonical URLs and what it all means. From my understanding, it's informing Google which page to take into consideration when there's the possibility for duplicate content. Right?
However, with the site I'm working on I'm not sure if it would be worth putting site-wide and the impact it would have.
Site I'm working on - http://bit.ly/N7eew7
With the nature of the site, there would be a lot of duplicated content as there's the possibility that several properties listed could have a similar address due to being in the same building etc.
From what I can see, no canonical URL was setup on the homepage.
The other variations of the homepage URL are 301 redirecting to thee http:/www. version.
Can someone explain it all to me in simple terms? Honestly believe that I'm getting more confused by the minute.
Thanks guys for your patience
-
Seems like Matt and Marcus have you on the right track. With a real-estate site, duplicates and near-duplicates are very common, since you're adding and removing properties all the time and there are many search options and categories. I do agree that search-friendly URLs, long-term, where each property has a fixed URL, are definitely the best bet. In the meantime, though, a solid canonical structure helps a lot.
Ease into it - don't go sitewide in one fell swoop without a plan, unless you're having clear ranking problems. Start with your biggest problem areas, monitor/measure, and work from there. You can always check for indexed duplicates by running a Google search like:
site:daft.ie intitle:"176 Rathgar Road"
In this case, I'm not seeing any index issues, although I think Matt's concerns are valid.
I'd also consider rel=prev/next for search results pages, as that can help focus Google, too. Again, take it one step at a time and start with the biggest problems. It'll mitigate your risk all around.
-
What's everyones opinion canonicali URL being setup site-wide?
-
Hey, as per the email, it is exactly as above.
We can check the two versions of the URLs.
Confirm they both have the same canonical URL
then check both URLs using the info:URL command in Google to verify that in both instances, with and without final slash, the URL returned as indexed includes the final slash as per the canonical.
Any problems, give me a shout!
Marcus -
Hi Marcus thanks for your help so far. I've emailed you my URL's for a better look at the issue I'm facing.
-
Hi Antonio,
I hope you're well and not pulling your hair out in frustration just yet.
There are a few factors that you need to consider before making a decision on this:
1. Would changing the URL of the post give more traffic through the search engine than you are currently getting?
2. How would this impact the existing links that have been built to the original URL.
Remember that if you are going to change the URL of a page, this will just look like a new webpage to Google. All of the Facebook likes, Google+ +1's, links, etc will be going to the previous URL. Not only that, if you do a 301 redirect to the new URL, you will only transfer some of the link juice that you have made.
URL changes really should be a last resort and need to be thought out properly at the start of the webpage creation. In the case of Mark (above), I have recommended that he change the URLs because they are all dynamic and the benefit of changing these pages vs not, wins.
Let me know the URL of the page in question and I will take a look and tell you what I think.
Matt.
-
Hello Mathew and Mark congrats for the great support and highlights.
In the light of what you are explaning here could you please supoport me in this question concerning Canonical or 301 redirect? My issue is in terms of SEO when doing canolical.
I have a page with a long post title and url path name (more than 70 caracters and 115). This page has many visits but I am changing the SEO website structure according to SEOMOz and forums guidelines for the length names so: I WILL CREATE A DUPLICATE PAGE WITH THE SAME INFO.
This issue has been marked as an issue in the SEO tools, for long names>70 and url path names>115
My question is which option should I use and you would recommend me?
1. OPTION 1: Ideally I would like to keep the old post, so I should use the canonical tag, but my main concern is if the search engines in terms of SEO, even the canonical has been done, will penalise my SEO as there is still a post with bad SEO optimising, or if this is not the case because I already used the canonical. The duplicate content would still exist!
2. OPTION 2: Eliminate the post and redirection 301 to the new page to keep the juice.
I would prefer option 1, as I keep both post and page, but only if searchengines do not penalise my SEO as they detect a long post name and url path name.
Thank you very much for the help,
Antonio
-
Hi Matthew,
Thanks very much for your explanation. I think I get to understand it better now
Many thanks,
Christian
-
Will do - cheers Matthew
I'll probably take you up on that offer.
-
No problem.
I think the URLs should be the primary focus, and if you need any help on this, feel free to drop me a private message, etc and I will help you out.
Matt.
-
Hi Matthew, thanks for chipping in.
At the moment we do have canonical URLs setup for property listings such as the example you given above.
We'll still be going ahead with cleaning up the URL structure and ensuring categories following the correct practice as well.
-
Hi Christian,
No, this wouldn't be the case because what you are telling Google there is that "http://www.example.co.uk/properties/search" is the EXACT SAME page as the "/properties/search?page=1&commercialListingType=lease&propertyType=commercial/properties/search?page=1&commercialListingType=buy&propertyType=retail/" page.
For the likes of just search pages, you don't need to have canonical URLs because they are just dynamically generated search pages. Where you DO NEED canonical URLs is on the likes of category pages, product pages, etc.
So, in the case of Mark's website, the individual property listing pages (e.g, http://www.daft.ie/searchshortterm.daft?id=23606) need to have a canonical link because you could get to this page that has the EXACT SAME content with a similar URL (i don't know another URL to give the example here but a made up example could be http://www.daft.ie/searchshortterm.daft?id=23606keyword=dublin).
This is why you should have search engine friendly URLs to make it easy to understand which page is which. So having http://www.daft.ie/short-term/dublin/176-rathgar-road-apartment/ as the URL instead of http://www.daft.ie/searchshortterm.daft?id=23606 can make life a lot easier.
Has this helped to clear things up a bit?
Matt.
-
Hard to tell for 100% without the proper URLs but I don't think so.
You have one page that works on two different URLs. The page has a canonical tag showing that the http://www.mysite.com/product-a/ is the correct version.
So, in Googles eyes:
http://www.mysite.com/product-a/
http://www.mysite.com/product-aAre both pointing to:
http://www.mysite.com/product-a/
Due to the tag:
<link < span="">href="http://www.mysite.com/product-a/" rel="canonical" /> </link <>
There could be a bit more to this picture, if you don't want to post a link on here drop me an email to marcus@bowlerhat.co.uk and ill double check for you.
In an ideal world I would want consistency between URL's, site links and trailing slashes. I.E. If the page resolves on:
http://www.mysite.com/product-a
But is canonicalised to
http://www.mysite.com/product-a/
I would want a 301 from
http://www.mysite.com/product-a
to
http://www.mysite.com/product-a/
and all internal links to point to
http://www.mysite.com/product-a/
That's probably made it more confusing but in essence, nope, I think you are fine.
Cheers
Marcus
-
Hi Marcus
So here's what I've done...
So I've navigated like so:
Campaign>Crawl Diagnostics>Errors (68)>Duplicate Page Content Errors (61)Once this page loads all of the links, I've clicked on one of the links and it shows
1 Error
X Duplicate Page Content
Read MoreClicked on Read More then on the number 2 link that shows under the heading of Other URLs
This displays my two urls:
http://www.mysite.com/product-a/
http://www.mysite.com/product-aWhen I navigate to this page and view the source code I can see the following code:
href="http://www.mysite.com/product-a/" rel="canonical" />So I'm confused, do I have a duplicate content problem or not?
NB If I remove the trailing slash from my url it will show the same page. It does not do a redirect to the url with the slash. (I've highlighted this to Hubspot and they have said that it is not a problem?)
-
I don't believe that SEOMoz reports cover canonicalised links.
Simple test:
- Grab one page that has duplicate problems according to the report
- grab all duplicates from the spreadsheet
- Check the canonical on all
Mark - this is the same problem you will run into that I was trying to highlight above.
Marcus
-
I'm trialling seoMoz at the moment and so far I have 61 duplicate content crawl errors showing in one of my campaigns. This has sent me running to my CMS provider (Hubspot) to query this.
They've advised me that they automatically sort out canonicalisation.So I'm left in a state of not knowing where to focus.
Are Hubspot wrong or are the seoMoz reports broken?
-
Hi Christian,
That's a really good question - Can anyone shed any light on this one?
Personally I would have made the URL you mentioned be the canonical one.
But seeing I'm here asking for advice on it, maybe someone else would be better placed to help.
-
Well, you know, my dear old mother used to say an ounce of SEO prevention is worth a pound of SEO cure. Catch you later Mark.
-
Hi Mark and Marcus,
Sorry for jumping in your discussion; if i have URLs like below:
/properties/search?page=1&commercialListingType=lease&propertyType=commercial
/properties/search?page=1&commercialListingType=buy&propertyType=retail
does this mean that my canonical will be:
?
Many thanks for your help.
~Christian
-
Thanks Marcus - Agreed
Once URL structure has been improved, I will look into ensuring that specific property pages have canonical URLs and all relevant categories are appropriate setup as well.
Quite a bit of work to do but it should be worth it in the long term for the business.
-
Hi Mark,
No problem.
Yes, you are correct to assume that. For each of the property listings you would need to do this (just like the example that Marcus has given below).
I think that all areas of the website should really conform to these search engine friendly URLs. It may take quite a bit of time, but it will help you avoid a lot of issues in the future (which I can guarantee you would have).
Matt.
-
Yep, for sure, just beware it may still report duplication problems after you add the canonical URL so you will need to give it a manual once over. This is 100% worth doing though.
Marcus
-
Hi Marcus,
Just problems with the Moz tools.
We haven't been affected at all by any algorithm changes so far.
I still think it would be best to follow best practice going forward. I've just began work on this site and want to get to the root of any underlying problems.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Hey Mark
Are you having real world issues or just problems within the Moz tools?
I have feeling they don't factor canonicalisation at the moment (which sucks a bit) so you will do well to export the report to a spreadsheet and check them off manually.
Glad it was helpful!
Marcus
-
Marcus, thank you for giving such clear examples to me. It's a great help.
I'm a little bit embarrassed by the fact that it was causing such confusion up until now but it's clear to me now what needs to be changed.
With SEOMoz Campaign setup for the site, we have been receiving many duplicate content errors.
Hopefully the use of correct canonical URLs should help to eliminate many of the problems we have been having.
-
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the advice
Optimization of the URL structure is certainly something which I'm focusing on at the moment.
Taking on-board what you have mentioned, with the URL structure replaced, I presume that similar canonicals would need to be setup on each property listing to avoid duplicate content?
Do you think it's an issue which I should look into for other areas of the site as well?
Apologies for my questions. As you can guess, I'm trying to get to the root of any issues we're having with duplicate content.
Many thanks,
Mark
-
Hey Mark
In simple terms, the canonical URL exists as a suggestion to Google that a page may have various URLs or that various URLs may contain similar or near duplicate content.
For instance:
Lets say we have a list of properties in Birmingham, UK and that we have 3 pages showing that list of properties - the first by date order, the second by price high to low, the third by price low to high.
- http://www.example.co.uk/birmingham/properties.php
- http://www.example.co.uk/birmingham/properties.php?sort=hightolow
- http://www.example.co.uk/birmingham/properties.php?sort=lowtohigh
This is a perfect time to use the canonical URL as the content is the same, it is just jiggled around a little so all of these would set the default page as the canonical.
default page: http://www.example.co.uk/birmingham/properties.php
So, all pages would have this tag:
Then, Google knows that from a search and indexation perspective, they can return the one main version of this page and the others are just the same thing jumbled around a bit.
This is also a good, solid overview with a video and a basic explanation:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
Hope that helps!
Marcus -
Hi Mark,
I hope you're well.
Basically, the canonical tag is used to let Google know which URL it should refer to as the original source of the page content. So, if you had the following URLs that all go to the homepage:
www.domain.com/
www.domain.com/index.php
www.domain.com/home/Then Google could crawl each of these pages and identify them as three different pages all with the same content. This could say to them that there is duplicate content on the site (which is not good). Usually with the homepage Google is intelligent enough to understand that there is just one page and the /index.php for example isn't a duplicate.
The problem that you do face, especially on the site that you are optimising, is with the different pages that have information on the lettings, etc (i.e. your product pages). For example, if you look at the following URL on your website:
http://www.daft.ie/searchshortterm.daft?id=23606
This is when you go through to the short-term searches and then I find the '176 Rathgar Road' apartment. Due to the dynamically generated URL (search.shortterm.daft?id=23606) I can gather that there would be several ways to get to this page with a different URL. My first suggestion would be to set up Search Engine Friendly URLs, for example, instead of having 'http://www.daft.ie/searchshortterm.daft?id=23606', it would be:
http://www.daft.ie/short-term/dublin/176-rathgar-road-apartment/
This way you could clearly optimise the page on Google search and have the canonical link to the page as:
href="http://www.daft.ie/short-term/dublin/176-rathgar-road-apartment.html" rel="canonical" />
This would improve the SEO performance on the website and avoid duplicate content issues.
I hope this helps, but if you need any more info then just let me know.
Matt.
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 urls - do my web pages need them?
Hello, I'm going round in circles with this issue, so hopefully someone can help... The Moz crawl of my website lists a number of pages as "missing canonical url". The pages are all different and do not have similar content. Do I need to add a canonical url to each page? My agency quoted the following (x referencing this page: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/consolidate-duplicate-urls) list itemYou would use Canonical URLs if: list item"...you have a single page that's accessible by multiple URLs, or different pages with similar content (for example, a page with both a mobile and a desktop version), Google sees these as duplicate versions of the same page." list itemThis is not the case here and so we would not propose to change anything. We could add Canonical URLs if the client feels that it is critical which occurs an additional cost. Any help / advice much appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | rj_dale0 -
Getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as duplicate pages and duplicate page titles can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what might I be missing?
I am getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as reporting both duplicate pages and duplicate page titles on crawl results, I can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what am I be missing? Has anyone else had a similar issue, how was it corrected?
Technical SEO | | tgwebmaster0 -
Should you use the canonicalization tag when the content isn't exactly a duplicate?
We have a site that pull data from different sources with unique urls onto a main page and we are thinking about using the canonicalization tag to keep those source pages from being indexed and to give any authority to the main page. But this isn’t really what canonicalization is supposed to be used for so I’m unsure of if this is the right move.
Technical SEO | | Fuel
To give some more detail: We manage a site that has pages for individual golf courses. On the golf course page in addition to other general information we have sections on that page that show “related articles” and “course reviews”.
We may only show 4 or 5 on each of those courses pages per page, but we have hundreds of related articles and reviews for each course. So below “related articles” on the course page we have a link to “see more articles” that would take the user to a new page that is simply a aggregate page that houses all the article or review content related to that course.
Since we would rather have the overall course page rank in SERPs rather than the page that lists these articles, we are considering canonicalizing the aggregate news page up to the course page.
But, as I said earlier, this isn’t really what the canonicalization tag is intended for so I’m hesitant.
Has anyone else run across something like this before? What do you think?0 -
I need an SEO Specialist to take a look at a few things for me
I need to hire an SEO specialist technician to take a look at a few things under the hood that I can't seem to figure out... is this the right place to ask for this type of paid help?
Technical SEO | | co.mc0 -
Many Errors on E-commerce website mainly Duplicate Content - Advice needed please!
Hi Mozzers, I would need some advice on how to tackle one of my client’s websites. We have just started doing SEO for them and after moz crawled the e-commerce it has detected: 36 329 Errors – 37496 warnings and 2589 Notices all going up! Most of the errors are due to duplicate titles and page content but I cannot identify where the duplicate pages come from, these are the links moz detected of the Duplicate pages (unfortunately I cannot add the website for confidentiality reasons) : • www.thewebsite.com/index.php?dispatch=categories.view&category_id=233&products_per_00&products_per_2&products_per_2&products_per_2&page=2 • www.thewebsite.com/index.php?dispatch=categories.view&category_id=233&products_per_00=&products_per_00&products_per_2&products_per_2&products_per_2&page=2 • www.thewebsite.com/index.php?dispatch=categories.view&category_id=233&products_per_00=&products_per_00&products_per_2&page=2 • www.thewebsite.com/index.php?dispatch=categories.view&category_id=233&products_per_2=&products_per_00&page=2 • www.thewebsite.com/index.php?dispatch=categories.view&category_id=233&products_per_00&products_per_00&products_per_00&products_per_00&page=2 With these URLs it is quite hard to identify which pages need to be canonicalize. And this is jsut an example out of thousands on this website. If anyone would have any advice on how to fix this and how to tackle 37496 errors on a website like this that would be great. Thank you for your time, Lyam
Technical SEO | | AlphaDigital0 -
Do I need a 301 redirect on htaccess if Apache is already configured to serve?
Apache is set up to serve both www and non-www versions the same content. Do I still need to put a 301 redirect in the htaccess file?
Technical SEO | | Ocularis0 -
I have been Hit with UNWANTED Links and I need to know how to remove them?
I have been looking at Google Webmasters Tools and saw that suddenly I have this huge amount of links form an unknown source “SiteLoki” never heard of it? Didn’t want it! Need to get rid of it!
Technical SEO | | rdominey
My Website www.getyourphotosoncanvas.com experienced a sudden and dramatic loss of presence on Google about three weeks ago. I first thought it was something to do with the new Google Algorithm. I also contacted Google to be re-evaluated. They replied:
Reconsideration request for http://www.getyourphotosoncanvas.com/: No manual spam actions foundMay 10, 2012 Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.getyourphotosoncanvas.com/,
We received a request from a site owner to reconsider http://www.getyourphotosoncanvas.com/ for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. - - - - - -
We reviewed your site and found no manual actions by the webspam team that might affect your site's ranking in Google. There's no need to file a reconsideration request for your site, because any ranking issues you may be experiencing are not related to a manual action taken by the webspam team.
Google Search Quality Team I have ran all kinds of web crawl tests, Google webmaster, talked with SEO “Experts” and still can not figure out what is happening. I decided to use a couple of SEOmoz tools to try to help me explain what is happening. I figured that if I could take a very specific and unique KeyPhrase and run it on a specific page that I might be able to better explain what is happening. Basically, We appear to be no longer searchable by key words or phrases on google?
There was another post regarding canonical tag issues; resolved, I removed all canonical tags for now. Today I discovered the links and I suspect that having even
1 link for this website will penalize you in Google. Here are some Webmaster Tools pages for reference: I also noted that the image for the link is from an old site hosted on www.Globat.com. I don't know what that significance might be. I left them in January. Thanks in advance for any help and advice you can offer, Ray Webmaster-Tools-Query_Your-Photo-On-Canvas.jpg Webmaster-Tools-Query_Photo-On-Canvas.jpg Webmaster-Tools-Query_Photos-On-Canvas.jpg Webmaster-Tools-Links_siteloki.jpg Webmaster-Tools-Links_siteloki_links.jpg0 -
Need some help with an old wordpress site we just merged with a new template
Sorry. URL is awardrealty.com I have a new website that we merged into a new wordpress theme. I just crawled the site with my seomoz crawl tool and it is showing a ridiculous amount of 4xx pages (200+) and we cant find the 4xx pages in the sitemap or within wordpress. Need some help? Am i missing something easy?
Technical SEO | | Mark_Jay_Apsey_Jr.0