Canonicalize or Block?
-
Hi Mozers,
We have staff profile pages w/ one main URL and then URLs with query parameters and jump links to take you to different parts of the page.
The longer URLs with parameters canonicalize to the main pages but should they also be nonidexed?
Thanks,
Yael
-
Thanks!
-
Got it, thanks!!!
-
Hi Yael
I completely agree - it is pretty much what canonical tags were developed for.
Regards
Nigel
-
Canonical and noindex are contradictory, Yael. It's either.or, never both. And in the case you describe, I doubt you could no-index the versions with parameters without doing it to the main URL as well (since technically they are all the same page code).
What you are describing is the classic use case for canonical tags - the exact same page referred to by multiple different URLs.
Hope that makes sense?
Paul
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
-
Robot.txt : How to block a specific file type in several subdirectories ?
Hello everyone ! I need help setting up a robot.txt. I'm trying to block all pdf files in particular directories so I'm using this command. In the example below the line is blocking all .gif in the entire site. Block files of a specific file type (for example, .gif) | Disallow: /*.gif$ 2 questions : Can I use this command to specify one particular directory in which I want to block pdf files ? Will this line be recognized by googlebots ? Disallow: /fileadmin/xxxxxxx/xxx/xxxxxxx/*.pdf$ Then I realized that I would have to write as many lines as many directories there are in which I want to block pdf files. Let's say I want to block pdf files in all these 3 directories /fileadmin/directory1 /fileadmin/directory1/sub1 /fileadmin/directory1/sub1/pdf Is there a pattern-matching rule I could use to blocks access to pdf files in all subdirectories instead of writing 3x the above line for each subdirectory ? For exemple : Disallow: /fileadmin/directory1*/ Many thanks in advance for any insight you may have.
Technical SEO | | LabeliumUSA0 -
Adding directories to robots nofollow cause pages to have Blocked Resources
In order to eliminate duplicate/missing title tag errors for a directory (and sub-directories) under www that contain our third-party chat scripts, I added the parent directory to the robots disallow list. We are now receiving a blocked resource error (in Webmaster Tools) on all of the pages that have a link to a javascript (for live chat) in the parent directory. My host is suggesting that the warning is only a notice and we can leave things as is without worrying about the page being de-ranked/penalized. I am wondering if this is true or if we should remove the one directory that contains the js from the robots file and find another way to resolve the duplicate title tags?
Technical SEO | | miamiman1000 -
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Well, what can I say question is on the title 😛
Technical SEO | | atakala
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Thank you mozzers.
I LOVE u guyz.0 -
Volusion eCommerce Site 302s and Canonicalization
There have been a couple other threads concerning this topic so I apologize, but I have an iteration on the main question that has not been answered. Crawl Diagnostics is giving me a bunch of 302 temporary redirect notices. For example, here is a page title URL:
Technical SEO | | anneoaks
http://store.in-situ.com/Rugged-Conductivity-Meter-p/0073380.htm and here is the redirect:
http://store.in-situ.com/Rugged-Conductivity-Meter-p/tape-clt-meter.htm?1=1&CartID=0 The first link is actually a child product of:
http://store.in-situ.com//Rugged-Conductivity-Meter-p/tape-clt-meter.htm Volusion tech support told me they believe most of them are meta redirects but could not find any documentation on them. All the other threads concerning this have said to either change the 302s to 301s, which I don't think is possible, or to add a nofollow tag. My question is do I need to do anything if both those pages are canonical to the parent product? Should I be passing on the linkjuice if neither of those pages are of high value?0 -
Canonicalization of index.html - please help
I've read up on the subject but am new at this so I thought I would just put forth a simple question. We want our home page to be referred to as www.domain.com. We want the search engines to find and return this URl in search results. But the page has to have a name and the actual name is NOT to www.domain.com/index.html. This, I believe is what can cause duplicate cotnent issues (not really duplicate but perceived by the serach engines as duplicate content). Is it best to insert http://www.domain.com/" /> in the HEAD section of the index.html page or am I totally misunderstanding this concept?
Technical SEO | | TBKO0 -
Blocking https from being crawled
I have an ecommerce site where https is being crawled for some pages. Wondering if the below solution will fix the issue www.example.com will be my domain In the nav there is a login page www.example.com/login which is redirecting to the https://www.example.com/login If I just disallowed /login in the robots file wouldn't it not follow the redirect and index that stuff? The redirect part is what I am questioning.
Technical SEO | | Sean_Dawes0 -
OK to block /js/ folder using robots.txt?
I know Matt Cutts suggestions we allow bots to crawl css and javascript folders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNEipHjsEPU) But what if you have lots and lots of JS and you dont want to waste precious crawl resources? Also, as we update and improve the javascript on our site, we iterate the version number ?v=1.1... 1.2... 1.3... etc. And the legacy versions show up in Google Webmaster Tools as 404s. For example: http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global_functions.js?v=1.1
Technical SEO | | AndreVanKets
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.cookie.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global.js?v=1.2
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.validate.min.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/json2.js?v=1.1 Wouldn't it just be easier to prevent Googlebot from crawling the js folder altogether? Isn't that what robots.txt was made for? Just to be clear - we are NOT doing any sneaky redirects or other dodgy javascript hacks. We're just trying to power our content and UX elegantly with javascript. What do you guys say: Obey Matt? Or run the javascript gauntlet?0