Canonical Tag for Pages with Less Content
-
I am considering using a cross-domain canonical tag for pages that are very similar but one has less content than the other.
The domains are geo specific, so for example.
www.page.com - with content xxx, yyy, zzz,
and
www.page.fr with content xxx
is this a problem because while there is clearly duplicate content here the pages are not actually significantly similar since there is so much less content on one page than the other?
-
If Page.fr is in French, I'd use rel=alternate/hreflang and not the canonical tag. It should allow both versions to rank for the appropriate audience without causing issues with duplication:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=189077
These aren't "true" duplicates and rel=canonical could disrupt the ranking ability of the French site.
-
-
-
Assuming I fully understand your question, here's an example as an explanation: If Page A has 2,000 words and Page B has 500 but the bulk of Page B's content appears in Page A, then Page B is a subset of Page A's superset and should have a canonical tag pointing to Page A.
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
-
Revamping/Re-optimizing State Pages - What to do with old content?
Hello Moz Fam! I work in the insurance industry and we serve all 50 states. We have a state page for each state where the content is thin(ish). We're slowly revamping each page and hitting every talking point for that specific state. I've used multiple tools to come up with a content template and link building template for each page as well. I spent 5 months last year proof reading all these pages. So the content is good, just not SEO good. I didn't have the team or resources to really optimize them all yet, now I do. My question is... what should I do with the old content? I was thinking of publishing it to other platforms that we have a contributor account on and linking back to each state page with it. Of course, I would wait a few days for the search engines to index the new content so it wouldn't be duplicated on these platforms. Good or bad idea?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LindsayE0 -
Increase in duplicate page titles due to canonical tag issue
Implemented canonical tag (months back) in product pages to avoid duplicate content issue. But Google picks up the URL variations and increases duplicate page title errors in Search Console. Original URL: www.example.com/first-product-name-123456 Canonical tag: Variation 1: www.example.com/first-product--name-123456 Canonical tag: Variation 2: www.example.com/first-product-name-sync-123456 Canonical tag: Kindly advice the right solution to fix the issue.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SDdigital0 -
Adding a Canonical Tag to each page referencing itself?
Hey Mozers! I've noticed that on www.Zappos.com they have a Canonical tag on each page referencing it self. I have heard that this is a popular method but I dont see the point in canon tagging a page to its self. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rpaiva0 -
301 or 404 Question for thin content Location Pages we want to remove
Hello All, I have a Hire Website with many categories and individual location pages for each of the 70 depots we operate. However, being dynamic pages, we have thousands of thin content pages. We have decided to only concentrate on our best performing locations and get rid of the rest as its physically impossible to write unique content for all our location pages for every categories. Therefore my question is. Would it cause me problems by having to many 301's for the location pages I am going to re-direct ( i was only going to send these back to the parent category page) or should I just 404 all those location pages and at some point in the future when we are in a position to concentrate on these locations then redo them with new content ? in terms of url numbers It would affect a few thousand 301's or 404's depending on people thoughts. Also , does anyone know what percentage of thin content on a site should be acceptable ?.. I know , none is best in an ideal world but it would be easier if there we could get away with a little percentage. We have been affected by Panda , so we are trying to tidy things up as best at possible, Any advice greatly appreciated? thanks Peter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Do I need to use rel="canonical" on pages with no external links?
I know having rel="canonical" for each page on my website is not a bad practice... but how necessary is it for pages that don't have any external links pointing to them? I have my own opinions on this, to be fair - but I'd love to get a consensus before I start trying to customize which URLs have/don't have it included. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netrepid0 -
Is this structure valid for a canonical tag?
Working on a site, and noticed their canonical tags follow the structure: //www.domain.com/article They cited their reason for this as http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt. Does anyone know if Google will recognize this as a valid canonical? Are there any issues with using this as a the canonical?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Which is more effective: JQuery + CSS for Tabbed Content or Create Unique Pages for each tab.
We are building a from-scratch directory site and trying to determine the best way to structure our pages. Each general listing page has four sections of specific information. What is a better strategy for SEO: Using tabs (e.g. JQuery + CSS) and putting all content on one page (and will all of the content still be indexible using JQuery?) OR creating unique pages for each section. JQuery: sitename.com/listing-name#section1 Unique Pages: sitename.com/listing-name/section1 If I go with option one, I can risk not being crawlable by google if they can't read through the scripting. However, I feel like the individual pages will not rank if there's a small amount of content for each section. Is it better to keep all the content on one page and focus on building links to that? Or better to build out the section pages and worry about adding quality content to them so that long term there is more specificity for long tail search and better quality search experience on Google? We are also set up to have "../listing-type/listing-name" but are considering removing 'listing type and just having "../listing-name/". Do you think this more advantageous for boosting rankings? I know that was like five questions. I've been doing a lot of research and these are the things that I'm still scratching my head about. Some general direction would be really great! Thank You!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knowyourbank0 -
Duplicate Content, Campaign Explorer & Rel Canonical
Google Advises to use Rel Canonical URL's to advise them which page with similiar information is more relevant. You are supposed to put a rel canonical on the non-preferred pages to point back to the desired page. How do you handle this with a product catalog using ajax, where the additional pages do not exist? An example would be: <colgroup><col width="470"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eric_since1910.com
| .com/productcategory.aspx?page=1 /productcategory.aspx?page=2 /productcategory.aspx?page=3 /productcategory.aspx?page=4 The page=1,2,3 and 4 do not physically exist, they are simply referencing additional products I have rel canonical urls' on the main page www.examplesite.com/productcategory.aspx, but I am not 100% sure this is correct or how else it could be handled. Any Ideas Pro mozzers? |0