Rel="canonical" link should they be to or from an "SEO friendly" url
-
Thanks for taking the time to review this.
So for our example, lets use the following SEO friendly link:
We'll call this link the SEO VERSION
The title of the college is" Pacific Christian College of Minstry and Biblical Studies"
The title of the program is "BA Biblical Studies"
The QUERY version of the link to this page would be something like:
Keep in mind that the meta title, description, and keyword tags for the page are all administerable
The SEO VERSION is automatically created from the title of the college, and the title of the program. Each one of these titles can be overidden with a URL slug individually. For instance, the admin could make the link:
by changing the slug for the college to "pacific-christian-college-of-ministry" and the slug for the program to "biblical-studies". Let's call this version the SLUG VERSION
So now we have multiple ways to get to the same content. The question on the table is what is best practice for the rel="canonical" link to keep from getting dinged for duplicate content.
Let's say that our SEO VERSION is the canonical link for 1 year. Then the choice was made to optimize the links thru the slugs creating the SLUG VERSION. My assumption is that we would keep the SEO VERSION as the canonical link.
But then let's say 6 months later that the title of the program is changed in the admin. Now the SEO VERSION has changed and so has the canonical link. Do we lose the link juice garnered over the last 18 months?
It would seem to me, that if we use the QUERY version as the canonical link, then any optimizations or changes affect everything except the canonical link, thus keeping the previous link juice earned. But is having an ugly URL as the canonical link detrimental to SEO?
Please advise.
-
Jeff's spot on. Come up with the briefest visitor readable URL that fits the proper understanding of the page identity along with its hierarchical relationship to content above it in that funnel. That's the URL that should be referenced in the canonical tag as well as links pointing to the page. If for some reason months or years later that URL needs to change (because the program name changes for some reason for example), then make that change and implement a 301 redirect to that new URL to pass any previously accumulated link value.
-
Robert-
My advice: use the URL structure for the canonical link that does not contain the name-value pairs, such as:
http://www.domain.com/URL-structure/avoid-name-value-pairs/Don't use the more complicated one like this:
http://www.domain.com/search-query-result.php?id=123&page=42&query=should-you-avoid-name-value-pairs-in-SEO-urlsInstead, go with a short, human readable URL for your canonical link, and you'll have better results.
Here's why I'm making this recommendation:
In the Moz.com guide to the basics of SEO: http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo/basics-of-search-engine-friendly-design-and-development, I'd recommend looking at their URL Construction Guidelnes:
Go static
The best URLs are human readable without lots of parameters, numbers and symbols. Using technologies like mod_rewrite for Apache and ISAPI_rewrite for Microsoft, you can easily transform dynamic URLs like this http://moz.com/blog?id=123 into a more readable static version like this: http://moz.com/blog/google-fresh-factor. Even single dynamic parameters in a URL can result in lower overall ranking and indexing.
According to Google's Official Google Webmaster Central blog:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html"static URLs might have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates because users can easily read the urls"
Myth: "Dynamic URLs are okay if you use fewer than three parameters."
Fact: There is no limit on the number of parameters, but a good rule of thumb would be to keep your URLs shortHope this helps!
-- Jeff
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
-
Hreflang Errors 404 vs "Page Not Found"
For a websites that differ between catalogs (PDPs) what hreflang error causes the least harm? Obviously the best solution is to only have hreflang for shared products, but this takes more work to implement. So when no identical product exists... 1. Hreflang points to 404 or 410 error. 2. Hreflang points to 200 status "Page Not Found" page. This obviously has the additional issue of needing to point back to 100+ urls. I want to avoid having Google decide to ignore all hreflang due to errors as many correct urls will exist. Any thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | rigelcable0 -
Rel="Canonical"
Hi!, We´ve just launched a new website and on this web we are using a lot Call to Actions on every page of the web and all of this CTA`s goes to the same Landing Page. (Ej: http://www.landing page.com) The problem comes when Google says this Landing Page is duplicate content because we are using some parameters like, for instance, http://www.landing page.com/?fuente=Soporteensalesforce So now we have just 1 Landing Page but Google sees 13 pages, because of this parameters and Moz alerted me that Google is seeing it as duplicate content. Yesterday I put this on the head of the only Landing Page we have so Google can see it in the proper way, as just one landing, but I don´t know if it is enough or should I do anything else? What I put on the Head: Hope someone can help me about this because I´ve tried to find a solution and this is the only thing that came up to me, and don´t know if it´s the right thing. Thanks for your time!
On-Page Optimization | | Manuel_LeadClic0 -
Ranking for "synonym" terms on separate pages?
(My title says "synonym" but it's not exactly the most accurate word, but works best for the title_) I have a site that ranks #1 for a term, and let’s pretend it’s “cheap phone”. It’s also ranks #1 for “cheap phone service” and #3 for “cheap phone plans”. These are all the home page with those rankings I have a sub page whose natural title would be “Cheap Phone Plans” or “Cheap Phone Service”. I have it named something these and it is not optimized for either of these terms because I think it would be best to not mess with the good rankings I have already for those two terms So here’s my question: what would likely be the outcome if I optimized that subpage for “Cheap Phone Plans” or “Cheap Phone Service”? If Google began to direct searchers of this term to my subpage rather than my home page, would my home page lose some of it’s ranking with it’s main and most popular keyword, “cheap phone? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | bizzer0 -
Do links in footers or side bars count less than links in the center of the web page?
do links in footers or side bars count less than links in the center of the web page? How much less if so? I have some articles on my site. Would i get more of a boost in rankings to pages of my site by placing links in the text of my articles on my site to other pages on my site? Thanks mozzers!
On-Page Optimization | | Ron100 -
Your opinion on "Keyword | Keyword 2 | Keyword 3 - Sitename" Meta Title
While I'm personally against It I have seen it used. I would think that Google might see this as some degree of keyword stuffing, rather than a 'natural' title, which may hinder ranking. What are your thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | azu250 -
Recommended Min Amount of Content for "News" Bulletins
My company often puts out short news bulletins to announce short news updates. We have to write about these topics for our customers and to remain as an industry leader. However, there is not much real and interesting content to write about these topics. What is the minimum length you think these articles should consist of so that Google won't see them as weak/useless pages and possibly give us a Panda penalty for them?
On-Page Optimization | | theLotter0 -
Why does the on page report reports a full path link as Cannibalize link?
On the seomoz on page report i get a cannibalize error. This is due to a link being full path. When i change the link to relative path then there is no Cannibalize error. Should i change the internal links of the site to relative path? I would appreciate your help.
On-Page Optimization | | pickaweb0 -
Canonical to the page itself?
Hello, I'd like to know what happens when you use canonical to the same page itself, like: Page "example.com" rel canonical="example.com" Does that impact in something? Bad or good? See ya!
On-Page Optimization | | seomasterbrasil1