Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
-
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be.
I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation.
My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation.
I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave -
In the past i have seen conanicals take up to 5-6 weeks. My only other advice is to monitor the amount of indexed queries you have in Google. If you know you started with 100+ and over the past three weeks it has dropped down to 50, then it is slowly taking affect (once again, using the site search). If you see the opposite and you notice no change, then perhaps the tag is still incorrect or some other issue?
I can't promise that all of the queried URLs will become un-indexed but the most important thing is the base page ranks the highest when searching.
-
Hi Kyle
Thanks for the response. That is a good point regarding the site:www.... search and in fact all of the results used the correct canonical url with the cached versions showing the same corrected format. The last time the sitemap was downloaded was yesterday so maybe my concern shouldn't be that great. What I'm seeing in webmaster tools does include some of the older content with the parameters but if the SERP's are showing updated versions then maybe that will be flushed out. I am just under the impression that if its in Google Webmaster then its part of Googles overall point of view of your site.
The canonical url updates have been fixed for about 3 weeks.
-
First i would check to see if the update you made to the pages have been recognized by Google. You can do this simply by doing a "site:www.domain.com" search, then view the cached page. If you find that it has not been recognized, you can always resubmit a new xml sitemap to your webmaster tools. In the past i have seen this help speed up the process.
How long ago did you make these updates?
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
-
My website have h1 tags , but still crawlers can't find them?
crawlers can't crawl my meta description and h1 tags even when they are present.
On-Page Optimization | | Green_Beauty0 -
Will "internal 301s" have any effect on page rank or the way in which an SE see's our site interlinking?
We've been forced (for scalability) to completely restructure our website in terms of setting out a hierarchy. For example - the old structure : country / city / city area Where we had about 3500 nicely interlinked pages for relevant things like taxis, hotels, apartments etc in that city : We needed to change the structure to be : country / region / area / city / cityarea So as patr of the change we put in place lots of 301s for the permanent movement of pages to the new structure and then we tried to actually change the physical on-page links too. Unfortunately we have left a good 600 or 700 links that point to the old pages, but are picked up by the 301 redirect on page, so we're slowly going through them to ensure the links go to the new location directly (not via the 301). So my question is (sorry for long waffle) : Whilst it must surely be "best practice" for all on-page links to go directly to the 'right' page, are we harming our own interlinking and even 'page rank' by being tardy in working through them manually? Thanks for any help anyone can give.
On-Page Optimization | | TinkyWinky0 -
Phone #s in title tag
Good, bad, or doesn't affect local SEO? Same question for youtube videos. love this place - thanks in advance
On-Page Optimization | | Superflys0 -
Tag-URLs in Magento
Hello, I have got a problem concerning Tag-URLs in Magento (the URLs mentioned are just fictitious 😞 At the moment, they look something like this: (1) http://store.com/tag/product/list/tagId/1/ ... so these URLs are not search engine friendly at all. Using a Magento extension you could transform them in speaking URLs: (2) http://store.com/tag/digital-cameras What would you do if you sold, say, digital cameras and your online shop ranked high for the keyword "digital camera" with URL No. 1 (not search engine friendly). Would you transform (1) in (2) and 301 all non speaking URLs? But would you keep the high ranking for "digital camera" when 301 to URL No. (2). But, what I'm most concerned of is : There is actually a landing page (category page) for the keyword "digital camera" : http://store.com/digital-cameras. Shouldn't the last URL rank high for "digital camera"? (instead of the tag URLs). But given the situation above, does it make sense now to 301 the tag URL to the category page? I would perhaps lose my good ranking, wouldn't I? Thanks a lot for your help! Martin
On-Page Optimization | | SmartyMarty810 -
Too many links on page -- how to fix
We are getting reports that there are too many links on most of the pages in one of the sites we manage. Not just a few too many... 275 (versus <100 that is the target). The entire site is built with a very heavy global navigation, which contains a lot of links -- so while the users don't see all of that, Google does. Short of re-architecting the site, can you suggest ways to provide site navigation that don't violate this rule?
On-Page Optimization | | novellseo2 -
"On Page" report says 2 rel canonical urls-how do I fix that?
I am reviewing my On Page scores and I'm not getting a perfect score bk of this notice: No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> <dd>HOW do I fix that?</dd> <dd>I am using Platinum seo plugin which I have checked "Use canonical urls" and the page in question is</dd> <dd>http://adderalldosage.net/general-adderall-dosage/</dd> </dl>
On-Page Optimization | | ccare7230 -
"Canonical URL Tag Usage" recommendation in SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool
Here comes another one related to SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool. The tool says the following about one of our pages: Canonical URL Tag Usage Explanation: Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to
On-Page Optimization | | gerardoH
use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future
developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe
the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic
today. Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page. Let's say our page is http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand and on its header we'll place the following tag: Is this correct? I thought the canonical tag was meant for duplicates of the original page, for example: http://www.example.com/brands/print/abc-brand href="http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand**?SESSID=123** Thanks in advance.0 -
URL for location pages
Hello all We would like to create clean, easy URLs for our large list of Location pages. If there are a few URLs for each of the pages, am I right when I'm saying we would like this to be the canonical? Right now we would like the URL to be: For example
On-Page Optimization | | Ferguson
Domain.com/locations/Columbus I have found some instances where there might be 2,3 or more locations in the same city,zip. My conclusion for these would be: adding their Branch id's on to the URL
Domain.com/locations/Columbus/0304 Is this an okay approach? We are unsure if the URL should have city,State,zip for SEO purposes?
The pages will have all of this info in it's content
BUT what would be best for SEO and ranking for a given location? Thank you for any info!0