Canonical URLs being ignored?
-
Hi Guys,
Has anybody noticed canonical URLs being ignored where they were previously obeyed?
I have a site that is doing this at the moment and just wondered if this was being seen elsewhere and if anyone knows what the solution is?
Thanks,
Elias
-
I've usually seen it in cases like what Istvan mentioned - somehow, another signal comes into play. Maybe it's new links to the non-canonical URLs, maybe some internal pages with old links get crawled, maybe a new 301 or canonical comes into play that conflicts with the existing canonical.
If they're being ignore now, then it's possible you're using the canonical tag as a band-aid, for lack of a better term, and the underlying problem that caused the duplicates is still in play. If Google's really being indecisive, you may want to take a closer look at that underlying problem and not just rely on canonicals.
Generally, the tag is pretty strong, but Google does get it wrong from time to time. Sorry, it's hard to advise based on generalities. The devil is in the details on these situations, I find.
-
It was the same at that website also... This is why they have asked me if I have seen similar situations... and while investigating it, the most logical answer was this.
I hope it will resolve the issue for you also!
Cheers,
Istvan
-
Thanks István
I'm not sure if it is the same thing but I will look into it. It just seems odd to suddenly ignore Canonical URLs.
Thanks
-
Hi Elias,
I have seen a similar issue a few months ago at an ex employer. In their case 301 redirects have been ignored!
So basically what happened:
- They had an older link structure which they have redirected to the new url versions (this happened around 2009-2010)
- After a "silence" period in affiliate marketing they have reactivated their affiliate programs and heavily invested in it.
- Because of no. 2. they have gained a lot of incoming links with the old links
Now what we believe went wrong is that Google could interpret this as an "accidental" 301 redirect because of the high number new incoming links to the old version.
As far as I know, when they resolved their affiliate links everything went back to normal.
It might be that your situation is a similar one to theirs.
I hope it helps,
Istvan
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
-
Canonicals from sub-domain to main domain: How much content relevancy matters? Any back-links impact?
Hi Moz community, I have this different scenario of using canonicals to solve the duplicate content issue in our site. Our subdomain and main domain have similar landing pages of same topics with content relevancy about 50% to 70%. Both pages will be in SERP and confusing users; possibly search engine too. We would like solve this by using canonicals on subdomain pointing to main domain pages. Even our intention is to only to show main domain pages in SERP. I wonder how Google handles it? Will the canonicals will be respected with this content relevancy? What happens if they don't respect? Just ignore or penalise for trying to do this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Can we ignore "broken links" without redirecting to "new pages"?
Let's say we have reaplced www.website.com/page1 with www.website.com/page2. Do we need to redirect page1 to page2 even page1 doesn't have any back-links? If it's not a replacement, can we ignore a "lost page"? Many websites loose hundreds of pages periodically. What's Google's stand on this. If a website has replaced or lost hundreds of links without reclaiming old links by redirection, will that hurts?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Why do some URLs display in the SERPS with > seperators between subfolders, and others display with a /
Why do some URLs display like this: cargurus.com › Used Cars › Jeep Wrangler and others display like https://www.carmax.com/cars/jeep/wrangler Is there a significance to having the sub folders separated with an arrow vs a backslash?
Algorithm Updates | | Brian_Owens_10 -
Wordpress Canonical Tag Pointing to Same Page
So I noticed on a few of my clients wordpress tags (via moz) that there are canonical tags on URLs, pointing to that same URL. What is the point of that, and is it harming the website? Is this being done automatically via a plugin? Should I remove the canonical tags or leave as is?
Algorithm Updates | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Increased 404 and Blocked URL Notifications in Webmaster Tools
In the last 45 days, I am receiving an increasing number of 404 alerts in Google Webmaster Tools. When I audit the notifications, they are not "new" broken links, these are all links that have been pointing to non-existent pages for years that for some reason Google is just notifying me about them. This has also coincided with about a 30% drop in organic traffic from late April to early May. The site is www.petersons.com and its been around for a while and the site attracts a fair amount of natural links so in the 2 years I've managed the campaign I've done very little link-building. I'm in the process of setting up redirects for these urls but why is Google now notifying me of years old broken links and could that be one of the reasons for my drop in traffic. My second issue is my I am being notified that I am blocking over 8,000 urls in my Robots file when I am not. I attached a screenshot. Here is a link to a screenshot. http://i.imgur.com/ncoERgV.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | CUnet0 -
How Does Google Treat External Links to URLs with # Anchors?
Here are two URLs to explain this example: **Original URL: **example.com/1/ **URL that points to anchor within the webpage above: **example.com/1/#anchor Does Google treat these two URLs as separate entities or the same? For example, does an external link to the anchor URL pass full PageRank value to the original URL? How does Google handle this? Is there anything negative about this situation? Are there any risks associated with links to the anchor URL? Finally, is it more valuable for an external link to point to the URL without an anchor?
Algorithm Updates | | SAMarketing0 -
Is it OK to 301 redirect the index page to a search engine friendly url
Is it OK to 301 redirect the index page to a search engine friendly url.
Algorithm Updates | | WinningInch0 -
Local SEO url format & structure: ".com/albany-tummy-tuck" vs ".com/tummy-tuck" vs ".com/procedures/tummy-tuck-albany-ny" etc."
We have a relatively new site (re: August '10) for a plastic surgeon who opened his own solo practice after 25+ years with a large group. Our current url structure goes 3 folders deep to arrive at our tummy tuck procedure landing page. The site architecture is solid and each plastic surgery procedure page (e.g. rhinoplasty, liposuction, facelift, etc.) is no more than a couple clicks away. So far, so good - but given all that is known about local seo (which is a very different beast than national seo) quite a bit of on-page/architecture work can still be done to further improve our local rank. So here a a couple big questions facing us at present: First, regarding format, is it a given that using geo keywords within the url indispustibly and dramatically impacts a site's local rank for the better (e.g. the #2 result for "tummy tuck" and its SHENANIGANS level use of "NYC", "Manhattan", "newyorkcity" etc.)? Assuming that it is, would we be better off updating our cosmetic procedure landing page urls to "/albany-tummy-tuck" or "/albany-ny-tummy-tuck" or "/tummy-tuck-albany" etc.? Second, regarding structure, would we be better off locating every procedure page within the root directory (re: "/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/") or within each procedure's proper parent category (re: "/facial-rejuvenation/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/")? From what I've read within the SEOmoz Q&A, adding that parent category (e.g. "/breast-enhancement/breast-lift") is better than having every link in the root (i.e. completely flat). Third, how long before google updates their algorithm so that geo-optimized urls like http://www.kolkermd.com/newyorkplasticsurgeon/tummytucknewyorkcity.htm don't beat other sites who do not optimize so aggressively or local? Fourth, assuming that each cosmetic procedure page will eventually have strong link profiles (via diligent, long term link building efforts), is it possible that geo-targeted urls will negatively impact our ability to rank for regional or less geo-specific searches? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | WDeLuca0