How similar do pages need to be in order to utilize the canonical tag
-
Here is my specific situation. My company released new versions of a few documents in the fall. I was hoping that over time the old version would decline and the new version would rise but after 6 months the old version continues to rank #1 and the new version #3. The old version needs to stay on our site but users should really be getting to the most recent version. I think utilizing the canonical tag would solve the issue but i am concerned because the content on the actual pages is not duplicate but it is updated. Below are the two URLs to see the differences in the content.
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/06tr008.cfm
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr033.cfm
Is this an appropriate situation to use the canonical tag? If not, is there a better solution.
-
Super thanks for the heads up. I will start an new topic.
-
Hi Conor,
Welcome to the Q&A forum! Since this is an old topic, it may not get too much visibility. You may want to start a new question in its own thread.
-
I have a similar question. One of my pages is a help and questions page about completing a conversions and the other is the actual campaign landing page. While the subject of both pages is similar the content is not. Is the rel canonical tag appropriate here? I
-
Thanks! I will try it and see how it goes
-
Right. I just wanted to give you other options aside from the canonical tag, but if your site governance doesn't allow for these solutions the canonical tag as described by SSCDavis should work well.
-
I do not think they need to be all that similar. In one of Rand's examples he talked about in last weeks WBF he stated that he just did a blanket rel canonical on his old site to his new one and 2 days later everything was working as intended. When I went to check how he did it, it wasn't even specifically one page to another, he just added the rel canonical to the header file.
Your case is much more specific and involves doing it on on url only, not a whole domain. If I were in your position I would definitely give it a shot.
Quote from last weeks whiteboard friday :
The second example is even niftier and suggests some very cool applications as well, and so I want to point this one out. I was frustrated because for the last few years a very old domain that I created, I don't know, back in the late '90s, early 2000s, Randz.net was ranking really well for my name. I think it was ranking number 3 actually for my name, for Rand Fishkin in Google. I was always kind of frustrated because it's an old domain. I haven't updated in forever. I need to do the WordPress reinstall. I don't even know where the server login is. Whatever. It's kind of defunct at this point, and I haven't updated it in years. But I have this new blog, RandFishkin.com/blog. I really wish I could this one ranking because it has some good content on there, a bunch of posts that have been on Hacker News and some interesting things. It's much more current and updated. I do once a month at least put something new on there. So, what I did is I took very page in the header of the WordPress template, I took every page and I put a cross-domain rel=canonical to this URL. So every page at Randz.net now says canonical version is RandFishkin.com/blog. You know what happened? Two days, literally 48 hours, like the next time they crawled Randz.net, bang, RandFishkin.com/blog ranking number 3 for my name. It hadn't even ranked on page 1 or 2. I think it was on page 3 or 4 up until that point. So, just awesome to be able to put this, the page that I really want in the search results and kind of retire my old blog from being searchable.
-Rand Fishkin (Source)
-
Thanks for the response. Should I take that you advise against the utilizing the canonical tag for this scenario since you offered alternatives? Both of these alternatives make sense but I am not sure they are workable solutions within my site governance.
-
One option, aside from the canonical tag, is to put the new content on the old URL and add an archive tag to the older articles, like 10tr033-archive.cfm. Or, if that's not workable, create a new URL and 301 redirect all articles to that page and only ever keep your latest article there, but link to the older ones. By redirecting several articles to a new page and then linking out to the older ones from there on new URLs that new article page should out-rank all others and continue to do so as you update it.
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
-
Added a canonical ref tag and SERPs tanked, should we change it back?
My client's CMS uses an internal linking structure that includes index.php at the end of the URLs. The site also works using SEO-friendly URLs without index.php, so the SEO tool identified a duplicate content issue. Their marketing team thought the pages with index.php would have better link equity and rank higher, so they added a canonical ref tag, making the index.php version of the pages the canonical page. As a result, the site dropped in the rankings by a LOT and has not recovered in the last 3-months. It appears that Google had automatically selected the SEO-friendly URLs as the canonical page, and by switching, it re-indexed the entire site. The question we have is, should they change it back? Or will this cause the site to be reindexed again, resulting in an even lower ranking?
Technical SEO | | TienB240 -
Shopify Canonicals for Tagged Filters
I've been researching this topic endlessly and thought I had arrived at a solution but Screaming Frog indicates my solution was not successful. Problem: I used tags to filter my collections pages. The result, I discovered, was the creation of dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds, of additional collection URLs for each possible permutation of tag filters. I would like to make the collection page URL, with no tag filters, the canonical. Proposed Solution: I found the following code described somewhere as the solution: {% if template contains 'collection' and current_tags %} {% else %} {% endif %} However, I crawled my site with Screaming Frog and found that the canonical link element is still listed as the URL with the tags included. The crawler does recognizes the "noindex" instruction. Any ideas on what the best move is here?
Technical SEO | | vgusvg0 -
Home page canonical issues
Hi, I've noticed I can access/view a client's site's home page using the following URL variations - http://example.com/
Technical SEO | | simon-145328
http://example/index.html
http://www.example.com/
http://www.example.com/index.html There's been no preference set in Google WMT but Google has indexed and features this URL - http://example.com/ However, just to complicate matters, the vast majority of external links point to the 'www' version. Obviously i would like to tidy this up and have asked the client's web development company if they can place 301 redirects on the domains we no longer want to work - I received this reply but I'm not sure whether this does take care of the duplicate issue - Understand what you're saying, but this shouldn't be an issue regarding SEO. Essentially all the domains listed are linking to the same index.html page hosted at 1 location My question is, do i need to place 301 redirects on the domains we don't want to work and do i stick with the 'non www' version Google has indexed and try to change the external links so they point to the 'non www' version or go with the 'www' version and set this as the preferred domain in Google WMT? My technical knowledge in this area is limited so any help would be most appreciated. Regards,
Simon.0 -
Canonical: Is this a problem?
Hi!!
Technical SEO | | petrospan
I am running a small wordpress website and i have a question because i am a litle confusic about Rel Canonical notices in the crawl diagnostics! I have the seo by yoast and i have fix all the canonical url for my page, but i take notices. I must worried about it or is something that inform me that everyting is ok? rel.jpg rel.jpg0 -
Diagnostic says too many links on a page and most of the pages are from blog entries. Are tags considered links? How do I decrease links?
I just ran my first diagnostic on my site and the results came back were negative in the area of too many links one a page. There were also quite a few 404 errors. What is the best way to fix these problems? Most of the pages with too many links are from blog posts, are the tags counted as well and is this the reason for too many links?
Technical SEO | | Newport10300 -
Canonical tags and relative paths
Hi, I'm seeing a problem with Roger Bot crawling a clients site. In a campaign I am seeing you say that the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL. The tag is as follows:- /~/Standards-and....etc Google say:- relative paths are recognized as expected with the tag. Also, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL Is the issue with this, that there is a /~/, that there is no <base> link or just an issue with Roger? Best regards, Peter
Technical SEO | | peeveezee0 -
Duplicate titles OK if page don't need to rank well?
I know It is not a good idea to have duplicate titles across a website on pages as Google does not like this. Is it ok to have duplicate titles on pages that aren't being optimised with SERP's in mind? or could this have a negative effect on the pages that are being optimised?
Technical SEO | | iSenseWebSolutions0