301 and Canonical - is using both counterproductive
-
A site lost a great deal of traffic in July, which appears to be from an algorithmic penalty, and hasn't recovered yet. It appears several updates were made to their system just before the drop in organic results. One of the issues noticed was that both uppercase and lowercase urls existed. Example urls are:
www.domain.com/product123
www.domain.com/Product123To clean this up, a 301 redirect was implemented a few months ago.
Another issue found was that many product related urls had a parameter added to the url for a tracking purpose. To clean this up, the tracking parameters were removed from the system and a canonical tag was implemented as these pages were also found in Google's index. The tag forced a page such as www.domain.com/product123?ref=topnav to be picked up as www.domain.com/product123.
So now, there is a 301 to address the upper and lowercase urls and a canonical tag to address the parameters from creating more unnecessary urls.
A few questions here:
-Is this redunant and can cause confusion to the serps to have both a canonical and 301 redirect on the same page?
-Both the 301 and canonical tag were implemented several months ago, yet Google's index is still showing them. Do these have to be manually removed with GWT individually since they are not in a subfolder or directory?
Looking forward to your opinions.
-
I think the point is,
mydomain.com/Page.html 301's to mydomain.com/page.html
but mydomain.com/page.html?x=y canonicals to mydomain.com/page.htmlso in this case both have a function.
but having said that I would fix the links to mydomain.com/Page.html as using a 301 leaks link juice, they are good when correcting a external link, but an internal link should be fixed by fixing the link itself.
-
That's correct. A 301 was placed to point to the lowercase urls, and then a canonical tag on the same page to try to clean out the parameters in the URL.
-
Just because I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly or because its Friday & my brain is misfiring... Did you place a canonical on www.domain.com/Product123 pointing at the lowercase AND then 301 redirect it to the lowercase? Because if that's the case then it would really only pick up the 301.
-
Mike,
To answer your question above, the product url without parameters (i.e. www.domain.com/product123) should be what the SERPs pick up. The parameters that were there for a short period are no longer there and haven't been. I've also heard that in time, the crawlers will notice it and index correctly. But, 3 months after canonical tags were implemented and still no updates from what the index had as they are still being shown.
Also, a tool was used to show what crawling the site would look like to a spider. The uppercase urls (i.e. www.domain.com/Product123) have the 301 redirect being picked up. However, the canonical tag didn't seem to be picked up according to the tool. On other pages of the site where the canonical tag was implemented, without the 301, the tool shows detection which is what led me to this post.
-
They can be used together in this fashion without any problems. The 301 is redirecting duplicate content that does not need to physically exist and is better served by another page. The Canonical "redirects" the bots from a page that needs to exist for a specific purpose (tracking tag, model id, product id, etc.) but which is a duplicate or subset of another page that should be given the proper ranking signals in place of the page with the variable.
Edit: As to the second question, don't worry. They will naturally change over to the correct page(s) over time as long as Google chooses to follow the canonical tag and consider the page it is pointing to as proper/relevant. In the meantime, the 301s will bring people to the proper place and the canonicals should be passing signals/equity to the proper pages.
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
-
301 Question - issue
A while back we had a 'bleed' on one of our sites, which basically meant one of our sites started to leak across pages to another and that site started to rank for the same pages and now we have hundreds of pages ranking for urls that do not exists. It's hard to explain, bare with me. If you were to click on the cached view in Google for the ranked page it would show you the main site, but if you were to click it as usual, then you would be taken to the site but a 404 would show as the intended page was not for that site. We believe we fixed the 'bleed' and have setup 301s for all the affected pages to go to the home page for the site it affected. But these pages have not been removed from Google, which we thought a 301 would do. So we still have hundreds of pages being ranked but are redirected to the home page. Why hasn't these pages been removed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JH_OffLimits0 -
Too many 301 redirects?
Hey, My company currently has one chief website with about 500-600 other domains that all feature the same material as the chief website. These domains have been around for about 5 years and have actually picked up some link traffic. I have all of these identical web-pages utilizing rel=canonical but I was wondering if I would be better served, from SEO purposes, to 301 redirect all of these sites to their respective pages on our chief website? If I add 500 301 redirects, will the major search engines consider this to be black-hat link-building even though the sites are related and technically already feature the same content? For an example, the chief website is www.1099pro.com and I would 301 redirect the below sites to the chief site: 1099softwarepro.com 1099softwarepro.info 1099softwarepro.net 1099softwarepro.biz 1099softwareprofessionals.com 1099softwareprofessionals.info ...you get the point
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
Confusion about forums and canonical links
Like many people, I get a lot of alerts about duplicate content, etc. I also don't know if I am hurting my domain authority because of the forum. It is a pretty active forum, so it is important to the site. So my question is, right now there could be 50 pages like this <domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrickPicker
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-1
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-2
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-3
all the way to:
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/page-50</domain></domain></domain></domain></domain> So right now the rel canonical links are set up just like above, including the page numbers. I am not sure if that is the best way or not. I really thought that all the of links for that topic should be
<domain>/forum/index.php/topic/6043-new-modular-parisian-restaurant-10243-is-here/ that way it would passing "juice" to the main topic/link. </domain> I do have other links setup for:
link rel='next',link rel='up',link rel='last' Overall is this correct, or is there a better way to do it?0 -
Use of Rel=Canonical
I have been pondering whether I am using this tag correctly or not. We have a custom solution which lays out products in the typical eCommerce style with plenty of tick box filters to further narrow down the view. When I last researched this it seemed like a good idea to implement rel=canonical to point all sub section pages at a 'view-all' page which returns all the products unfiltered for that given section. Normally pages are restricted down to 9 results per page with interface options to increase that. This combined with all the filters we offer creates many millions of possible page permutations and hence the need for the Canonical tag. I am concerned because our view-all pages get large, returning all of that section's product into one place.If I pointed the view-all page at say the first page of x results would that defeat the object of the view-all suggestion that Google made a few years back as it would require further crawling to get at all the data? Alternatively as these pages are just product listings, would NoIndex be a better route to go given that its unlikely they will get much love in Google anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | motiv80 -
Should I use BOTH UBL and Localeze?
Would it be worthwhile to list a business with both UBL and Localeze?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DougHoltOnline0 -
Canonical Issue need hep
Hi Is my site has any issue with duplicate pages within the site , have i define my canonical tag properly , can any one advise please help. childrensfunkyfurniture.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | conversiontactics0 -
301 redirect via htaccess question
So, I have www.sitea.com and www.siteb.com I want to redirect SOME pages from www.sitea.com to www.siteb.com (example: www.sitea.com/plugins/wp/ to www.siteb/wp/ etc ) and the rest of any pages left, to the homepage of www.siteb.com. It is something with conditions... any help, please?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jasmin280