Canonical needed after no index
-
Hi do you need to point canonical from a subpage to main page if you have already marked a no index on the subpage, like when google is not indexing it so do we need canonicals now as is it passing any juice?
-
Thanks Alan
-
I tried also could not find it.
but here is a quote from Matt Cutts
"Eric Enge: Can a NoIndex page accumulate PageRank?Matt Cutts: A NoIndex page can accumulate PageRank, because the links are still followed outwards from a NoIndex page.
Eric Enge: So, it can accumulate and pass PageRank.
Matt Cutts: Right, and it will still accumulate PageRank, but it won't be showing in our Index. So, I wouldn't make a NoIndex page that itself is a dead end. You can make a NoIndex page that has links to lots of other pages.
For example you might want to have a master Sitemap page and for whatever reason NoIndex that, but then have links to all your sub Sitemaps.
Eric Enge: Another example is if you have pages on a site with content that from a user point of view you recognize that it's valuable to have the page, but you feel that is too duplicative of content on another page on the site
That page might still get links, but you don't want it in the Index and you want the crawler to follow the paths into the rest of the site.
Matt Cutts: That's right. Another good example is, maybe you have a login page, and everybody ends up linking to that login page. That provides very little content value, so you could NoIndex that page, but then the outgoing links would still have PageRank.
Now, if you want to you can also add a NoFollow metatag, and that will say don't show this page at all in Google's Index, and don't follow any outgoing links, and no PageRank flows from that page. We really think of these things as trying to provide as many opportunities as possible to sculpt where you want your PageRank to flow, or where you want Googlebot to spend more time and attention."
http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts.shtml
-
Hey Alan
I tried looking for that but returned empty handed. Any chance you can post a link to that if you come across that video again. Much appreciated
-
Where did you hear this
Matt Cutts as I remember stated that that link juice will flow thought if you use a follow, if I remember correctly it was in a interview with Rand on SEOMOZ
-
the meta tag of follow will not pass any link juice!!! It is only an instruction for bots to crawl the pages from the links on the page.
Please see the answer below
-
If its not in the index, then a canonical will have no value.
I wold no no index any page unless you have a very good reason, if I had to I would use meta tag, noindex,follow so that any link juice pointing to the page will be returned
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
-
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Canonical Page Question
Hi, I have a question relation to Canonical pages That i need clearing up. I am not sure that my bigcommere website is correctly configured and just wanted clarification from someone in the know. Take this page for example https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/ Canonical link is https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/ The Rel="next" link is https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?sort=bestselling&page=2 and this page has a canonical tag as rel='canonical' href='https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?page=2' /> Is this correct as above and working as it should or should the canonical tag for the second (pagination page) https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/?page=2 in our source code be saying rel='canonical' href='https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/barra-lures/' />
Technical SEO | | oceanstorm0 -
Should I remove these pages from the Google index?
Hi there, Please have a look at the following URL http://www.elefant-tours.com/index.php?callback=imagerotator&gid=65&483. It's a "sitemap" generated by a Wordpress plug-in called NextGen gallery and it maps all the images that have been added to the site through this plugin, which is quite a lot in this case. I can see that these "sitemap" pages have been indexed by Google and I'm wondering whether I should remove these or not? In my opinion these are pages that a search engine would never would want to serve as a search result and pages that a visitor never would want to see. Attracting any traffic through Google images is irrelevant in this case. What is your advice? Block it or leave it indexed or something else?
Technical SEO | | Robbern0 -
If Google's index contains multiple URLs for my homepage, does that mean the canonical tag is not working?
I have a site which is using canonical tags on all pages, however not all duplicate versions of the homepage are 301'd due to a limitation in the hosting platform. So some site visitors get www.example.com/default.aspx while others just get www.example.com. I can see the correct canonical tag on the source code of both versions of this homepage, but when I search Google for the specific URL "www.example.com/default.aspx" I see that they've indexed that specific URL as well as the "clean" one. Is this a concern... shouldn't Google only show me the clean URL?
Technical SEO | | JMagary0 -
CPanel Redirects: Know How Needed
I have ran into something I have not ran into in the past. cpanel, setting a 301 redirect. --Drop down domain choice ----- / ---- ?attachment_id=539 http://ipromotis.com (Only box marked is redirect with or without www) Produces 301 Redirect http://ipromotis.com to http://ipromotis.com
Technical SEO | | yeagerd0 -
Why are these pages duplicates when canonical is defined?
The SEOmoz reports indicate that the following pages are duplicates even though the canonical tag has been added. http://www.designquotes.com.au/dq/web/get-quotes/quotes http://www.designquotes.com.au/dq/web/get-quotes/brief Is this normal?
Technical SEO | | designquotes0 -
Rel Canonical for Miva Merchant
Due to necessary pagination on the site that sells thousands of products, and due to products being assigned to more than one category in the Miva Merchant store, we have been battling duplicate content, and Meta tag issues. I asked lot of questions on the Miva forum on how to use rel canonical in Miva, and got this script below to use. It was supposed to solve all of our problems, but now it seems that every page of the site is under Rel Canonical Notices in the Crawl Diagnostics. I am not sure I am reading the Notices correctly, and if we achieved what we want or not. Here is an example of one listing: URL: http://www.domain.com/ABUS.html
Technical SEO | | 2CDevGroup
Tag Value: http://www.domain.com/
Page Authority: 28
Linking Root Domains: 1 | | | | |0 -
I have a site that has both http:// and https:// versions indexed, e.g. https://www.homepage.com/ and http://www.homepage.com/. How do I de-index the https// versions without losing the link juice that is going to the https://homepage.com/ pages?
I can't 301 https// to http:// since there are some form pages that need to be https:// The site has 20,000 + pages so individually 301ing each page would be a nightmare. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | fthead90