How to choose the best canonical URL
-
In a duplicate content situation, and assuming that both rel=canonical and a 301 redirect pass link equity (I know there is still some speculation on this), how should you choose the "best" version of the URL to establish as the redirect target or authoritative URL?
For example, we have a series of duplicate pages on our site. Typically we choose the "cleanest" or shortest non-trailing-slash version of the URL as the canonical, but what if those pages are already established and have varying page authority/backlink profiles? The URLs are:
example.com/stores/locate/index?parameters=tags - PA = 54, Inbound Links = 259
example.com/stores/locate/index - PA = 60, Inbound Links = 302
example.com/stores/ - This is the version that currently ranks. PA = 42, Inbound Links = 3
example.com/stores - PA = 40, Inbound Links = 8
This might not really even matter, but in the interests of conserving as much SEO value as possible, which would you choose as either the 301 redirect target and/or the canonical version? My gut is to go with the URL that's already ranking (example.com/stores/) but curious if PA, backlinks, and trailing slashes should be considered also.
We of course would not 301 the URL with the tracking parameters.
Thanks for your help!
-
I like to keep the canonical neat so it looks better in the serps so as to encourage future users to click on it (people like clean, readable URLs), so I try not to use unnecessarily complex URLs. I have had very good luck in canonicalizing messy URLs with decent authority to new, completely non-ranking but clean, URLs and not only keeping but growing page authority.
And I have a fairly large site which is crawled regularly so I do value consistency--whichever page is set as the canonical will eventually become the ranking page, so current rank is not the biggest issue to me. In the long run, consistency will make your life (and the life of anyone who follows you in your present position) easier. (That being said, it wouldn't hurt anything if you prefer to use what is currently ranking.)
-
Thanks Linda! With regards to the trailing slash, typically we do set the non-trailing slash version as the canonical version across our site. So in this case, would you recommend that we stick with the non-trailing slash version for consistency's sake, even if it seems like it has lower SEO value?
Or would you go with the trailing slash version since it's the one currently ranking, and seems to have the more value; or even the longer URL with the highest PA/backlinks?
Thanks again!
-
In general, you will get the most links to a page via whatever URL is easiest for the linker to grab, so often it is not the prettiest, with parameters and such. But you really don't want that showing up in the serps, so don't use that as a canonical.
As far as the trailing slash/no slash issue, most people will use the no slash version if they are choosing how to add a link, even when the slash version would be more correct (as in your example) so you would also expect to see more links there.
But you mention that the slash version is the ranking version in your example. Is this mostly true throughout the site? (Maybe it is a Wordpress site that ends everything with slashes?) Then I'd stick with that. (I myself use the rule you first mentioned, the cleanest, non-slash version, but my site doesn't use trailing forward slashes.)
Do keep it consistent though. It would be a pain to always be checking pages to see what the canonical should be. The amount of SEO value you might lose is minimal.
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
-
Unsolved Ooops. Our crawlers are unable to access that URL
hello
Moz Pro | | ssblawton2533
i have enter my site faroush.com but i got an error
Ooops. Our crawlers are unable to access that URL - please check to make sure it is correct
what is problem ?0 -
Major Drop in URLs that Received Organic Search Visits
Hi there! I can't figure out this issue. We had a major drop in URLS receiving organic search visits (according to Koz) yet our traffic hasn't seemed to drop in correlation. Our site had a major issue at the end of may (*hence the drop in search traffic) but it seems to have recovered, yet URLs that Received Organic Search Visits has dropped dramatically. I've looked at Google updates but can't seem to find anything, what am I missing? NVun4Wq
Moz Pro | | DotP0 -
Crawl Diagnostics - 350 Critical errors? But I used rel-canonical links
Hello Mozzers, We launched a new website on Monday and had our first MOZ crawl on 01/07/15 which came back with 350+ critical errors. The majority of these were for duplicate content. We had a situation like this for each gym class: GLOBAL YOGA CLASS (canonical link / master record) YOGA CLASS BROMLEY YOGA CLASS OXFORD YOGA CLASS GLASGOW etc All of these local Yoga pages had the canonical link deployed. So why is this regarded as an error by MOZ? Should I have added robots NO INDEX instead? Would think help? Very scared our rankings are gonna get effected 😞 Ben
Moz Pro | | Bendall0 -
Why does it keep displaying br tags and claiming 404 errors on like 4 of my URL's for all my Wordpress sites?
Is anyone else having the same issue? These errors don't actually exist and i think it has something to do with wordpress - how can i fix this?
Moz Pro | | MillerPR0 -
Do I have to set up new SEOmoz campaigns after URL switch?
We switched hundreds of pages on our website from dynamic to static URLs (and optimized the static URLs for keywords), and did 301 redirects to the new URLs. Also submitted a new sitemap to Google. This was about a week ago. For my existing SEOmoz campaigns that have crawled since then, it looks like SEOmoz is still looking at all of the old dynamic URLs. Do I have to set up new campaigns with the same keywords in order to get SEOmoz to look at the new URLs, or will the SEOmoz crawlers figure it out over time? Or am I doing something wrong? Thanks for your help!
Moz Pro | | sally580 -
'Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical', Critical Factor but appears correct on page
Hi, Trying to get the following page ranked unsuccessfully.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/2/Collections-Quilted-Jackets/c01c02.r16.1 Instead a product page is being ranked, shown below.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/Womens-Quilted-Jacket/Navy/M_HAMPTON/ProductDetail.raction When I run the on page report card it advises that the Rel Canonical tag needs to point to that page, but we have checked and it looks to be doing that already. Has anyone else had an issue like this? Thanks, Martin
Moz Pro | | rockethot0 -
Is canonical link enough?
Hi SEOmozers! I have a question. SEOmoz analysis report me some duplicate that I thought I had fix. I can give a concrete example. This page: http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/events/dec2011training-boston/moreinfo is reported as having 6 duplicated URL in the tool. When I click on 6, SEOMOZ tells me "Our crawl bots are getting their joints greased to fetch you even better data. Sorry for the delay!" And on the page itself, I placed a canonical link to follow recommandation. rel="canonical" href="http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/events/apr2012training-boston" /> As a result I am curious why I would have this reported as duplicate by SEOmoz. Is this a bug? Thanks for feedback!
Moz Pro | | nuxeo0 -
Can someone explain why I have been seeing an increase in the number of Linking Page URLs in OSE that link directly to downloads?
Ever since the last couple Linkscape updates when doing competitive back link analysis I have noticed a large increase in the number of URLs of Linking Pages in OSE that result in an immediate file download. The majority of the time these downloads are not common files ie PDF, DOC files. For example, these were all in a competitors back link profile: http://download.unesp.br/linux/debian/pool/main/i/isc-dhcp/isc-dhcp-relay-dbg_4.1.1-P1-17_ia64.deb http://snow.fmi.fi/data/20090210_eurasia_sd_025grid.mat http://www.rose-hulman.edu/class/me/HTML/ES204_0708_S/working model examples/Le25 mad hatter.wm?a=p&id=145880&g=5&p=sia&date=iso&o=ajgrep These are just a few I came across for a single competitor. Is this sketchy black hat SEO, some sort of error, actual links, or something else? Any information on this subject would be helpful. Thank you.
Moz Pro | | Gyi0