Rel=Canonical vs. No Index
-
Ok, this is a long winded one. We're going to spell out what we've seen, then give a few questions to answer below, so please bear with us!
We have websites with products listed on them and are looking for guidance on whether to use rel=canonical or some version of No Index for our filtered product listing pages. We work with a couple different website providers and have seen both strategies used.
Right now, one of our web providers uses No Index, No Follow tags and Moz alerted us to the high frequency of these tags. We want to make sure our internal linking structure is sound and we are worried that blocking these filtered pages is keeping our product pages from being as relevant as they could be. We've seen recommendations to use No Index, Follow tags instead, but our other web provider uses a different method altogether.
Another vendor uses a rel=canonical strategy which we've also seen when researching Nike and Amazon's sites. Because these are industry leading sites, we're wondering if we should get rid of the No Index tags completely and switch to the canonical strategy for our internal links. On that same provider's sites, we've found rel=canonical tags used after the first page of our product listings, and we've seen recommendations to use rel=prev and rel=next instead.
With all that being said, we have three questions:
1)Which strategy (rel=canonical vs. No Index) do you recommend as being optimal for website crawlers and boosting our site relevance?
2)If we should be using some version of No Index, should we use Follow or No Follow?
2)Depending on the product, we have multiple pages of products for each category. Should we use rel=prev & rel=next instead of rel=canonical among the pages after page one?
Thanks in advance!
-
Oleg, I like your thought process on this.
I am dealing with this exact issue and have 2 brilliant minds arguing over what is best approach. In reviewing the above, I agree with the approach. Canonical links to the first page of "Honda-civic-coupe" makes perfect sense.
Total we use prev-next, but self-refer rel=canonical the URL's on subsequent pages, but are not no-indexing page 2+. The negative impact is that Google will from time to time, add as site-links to the #1 search result a pagination page (e.g., 6 ) and some pagination pages are indexed. Landing page traffic to these is near zero. Our decision is determining whether to non-index or rel-canonical to the first page.
The pages in my case are new home communities where we might be listing all the different communities that are luxury communities in the specific city. While they are all this same category, as a group can be described similarly, and will have near duplicate metas, each community (list element) is unique. So, page #1 can be viewed as quite differentiated.
Here are the arguments:
-
Rel=canonical to the first page. As much as we think each shingle (i.e., page of 15 communities) is unique. The 15 Descriptions, amenities, location, what it is near, things you can do there are unique, As a group it can be considered just a list of communities. By pointing back to page #1 we are saying this is a collecting list of 3 pages of luxury communities in a given city. This will concentrate authority to the page that is most relevant.
-
No-index the subsequent pages. When Google said near duplicate, they really were considering limiting that scope to pages where the items are exactly the same or nearly the same. If the individual page content due to the differentiated product can be seen as unique content simply due to the in-page list elements, they are not really duplicate and rel=canonical is inappropriate. To use rel=canonical would at some point be viewed as manipulative and over-reaching use of rel=canonical. While this may cause this page to rank better, it may be considered not okay at some point.
Option #1 would seem to have a better immediate rank impact, but is there some real risk that it would be considered manipulative since the pages would not look to Google as near enough duplicates?
Glad to hear what you or others have to say.
-
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the input - we'll look into making those updates!
-
Yes, you would canonical to that searchnew.aspx page.
In this scenario, I would set up mod_rewrite to create "Category" page for each specific model so you can rank for more pages.
e.g /model/Honda-Civic-Coupe/ would be a static page and you can canonical all of the other filters to their respective pages.
-
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for the answers and advice - here's an example of a filtered inventory listings page on one of our sites that isn't currently using a rel=canonical on it. Would you just have the canonical point back to the main "searchnew" page? If you have any other insights to improvements to this page's structure, please feel free to send suggestions.
http://www.leithhonda.com/searchnew.aspx?model=Civic+Coupe
Thanks all!
-
I would say using rel canonical would be the best. I am guessing your filter system is using a anchor or a hashbang? We only do ecommerce work and we typically just have the canonical of the filter page pointed to the category that is being filtered. The reason being is that you don't want to reduce the chances of the category ranking in the serps.
But honestly like Oleg said, the site would need to be seen to give a 100% best possible answer. We have used several different strategies with our clients. Some involve actually rewriting the filter urls as landing pages and trying to rank them as well.
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the response. We're actually looking for info on our product listings pages, or search results pages within the site. Would this advice still apply to those pages?
-
Hard to give answer without seeing the site... ideally, you don't use canonicals or noindex and instead have 1 page per product.
-
Canonical is better overall i'd say - as long as the two pages you are merging are (almost) identical
-
keep the follow, doesn't hurt and only boosts pages it links to
-
Again, tough to understand but sounds like you should use canonical (pagination basically "merges" the paginated pages into 1 long one so to speak, so if you have the same content over and over again, best to canonical)
-
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
-
SEO Effect of inserting No indexed Contents in normal Pages (Nextgen Gallery)
Hello Dear Community, I'm running a photography website and have a question about the indexability of "No indexed Content" inserted on indexable pages. Background : I read everywhere that best practice is to "no index" all useless pages with few content, what I did with Yoast plugin : I no indexed all my nextgen galleries and "ngg_tags" since they create single pages for every photo, tags or slideshow. I did the same for all my porfolio-posts, price lists, testimonials and so on... Nevertheless, I inserted these galleries and portfolios on SEO optimized page for my target keywords. + Nextgen plugin automatically adds these images in the page sitemap. My idea is to have only my Seo optimized page showing in Google and not the others. Problem: I've been checking the results in Google Search Console, filtering by images : I discovered that most of the images featured in these Masonry galleries are not showing in google, and actually almost all the images indexed are the Wordpress from media gallery. I double checked with Screaming Frog, and the software doesn"t see images on these pages. My question is: Is the low indexablilty of these contents are related to the No indexation of the original contents ??? Does somebody has experienced the same issue that these contents doesn't show on Google ? in advance many thanks for your help
Reporting & Analytics | | TristanAventure0 -
Last click conversions (Assisted conversions report vs. Channels report)
Hi Mozzers, Does anyone know why the last click / direct conversions (by channel) in the 'assisted conversion report in Google Analytics do not match the conversions in the Channels report. I thought conversion data in the channels report was last click / direct conversions? Thanks for your help!
Reporting & Analytics | | A_Q0 -
Canonical Tags & GWT Parameters
A site I'm working on has canonical tags which I find to be accurate, regardless of tracking parameters or anything else added to the url. The tag looks like: And we have alot of parameters in Google Search Console that look like Parameter Crawl page Let Googlebot Decide destination Let Googlebot Decide filters Let Googlebot Decide Since all of our parameters follow a question mark, like http://www.examplesite.com/questions/avocados?source=ad12345 and all of our pages have canonical tags showing the representative url without the additional parameters, why wouldn't we just have the one parameter in GWT as Parameter Crawl ? Representative URL I ask because I find that Google analytics shows pages with parameters as landing pages in search, which has me concerned about Google seeing it as duplicate content. Thanks! Best... Darcy
Reporting & Analytics | | 945010 -
Google is not indexing all URLs
My website have company and events profile from 200 countries. So it does have lots of URL. Earlier in August 2014, Google used to crawl 90% of URLs we submit. Thing goes wrong when we shifted from http to https. We lost traffic. But we are gaining it slowly. Main concern is that, It still does not indexed all submitted URLs. It have crawled merely 8% of all URLs submitted. site address is businessvibes.com Any help would be appreciated.
Reporting & Analytics | | irteam0 -
How to detect where Google gets indexed URL's
Google index some kind of way some links that create duplicate content. We doesn't understand how these are created so we would like detect where Google robots find these links. We tried: Moz Crawl Diagnostics but it shows 0 as Internal Link Count for these kind of links. Find some information from Google Analytics, that maybe there is trace (site content - all content) from visitors side. There wan't. We tried to find some information in Webmaster Tools under Internal link and HTML Improvements but didn't find any trace. Tried some search commands. Is there maybe some good one to search. TO search URL's form code with https://search.nerdydata.com.
Reporting & Analytics | | raido0 -
Omniture vs Google Analytics
What's your opinion on analytics tools? Specifically Omniture vs Google Analytics. Is Omniture really that much more powerful than GA? Have you used GA Premium, the enterprise package? My main question - Can GA (free or premium) do everything that Omniture can? If GA Premium and Omniture were the same price, which would you choose? Is one harder to implement, pull reports, tweak, ect? Thanks in advance.
Reporting & Analytics | | akim260 -
Why do I have few different index URL addresses?
Yes I know, sorry guys but I also have a problem with duplicate pages. It shows that almost every page of my site has a duplicate content issue and looking at my folders in the server, I don't see all these pages... This is a static Website with no shopping cart or anything fancy. The first on the list is my [index] page and this is giving me a hint about some sort of bad settings on my end with the SEOMOZ crawler??? Please advice and thank you! index-variations.jpg
Reporting & Analytics | | cssyes0 -
How to find out which URLs are NOT indexed on a site
Is there a way to easily find out which URLs on a store-type site are NOT being indexed in Google? For example, if my sitemap information in Google Webmaster tools shows I have 7342 URLs in my sitemap and 5699 of those indexed, how do I find out what the 1643 non-indexed URLS are? Thanks for any help!
Reporting & Analytics | | GregWalt0