Rel=canonical + no index
-
We have been doing an a/b test of our hp and although we placed a rel=canonical tag on the testing page it is still being indexed. In fact at one point google even had it showing as a sitelink . We have this problem through out our website. My question is:
What is the best practice for duplicate pages?
1. put only a rel= canonical pointing to the "wanted original page"
2. put a rel= canonical (pointing to the wanted original page) and a no index on the duplicate version
Has anyone seen any detrimental effect doing # 2?
Thanks
-
Interesting - I've very rarely had issues with GWO, but if a new URL was created and someone linked to it, I can see where you might have a problem.
(1) None of these things are absolute, I'm afraid, but typically, yes - a rel=canonical to a different page should keep the first page out of the index.
(2) Usually, but it depends. The problem here may be that Google just isn't crawling the test variant very often, so they may not be processing the rel=canonical yet.
If it's just a couple of pages, I'd give it time - it's probably not an emergency situation. Again, you could just tell Google to remove them in GWT. I think you're doing the right thing with the canonical tags, but it can take Google time to process them the way you want to, in practice.
-
To answer the second question :
We actually use google's website optimizer to run our test -- the problem started when someone linked to the test page....
Not sure if these scenarios are different for google -- but just trying to understand it
1. if a page was never indexed before and you put a rel= canonical on it (pointing to a different page) than the rel = canonical will keep it out of the index?
2. If a page was already in the index and you put on rel=canonical is that a strong enough signal for google to go and remove it from the index?
obviously both these scenarios are once the pages have been crawled
-
I wouldn't mix those signals - it's nearly impossible to tell what's working if you do. If the canonical on the test page isn't working, there may be a couple of issues:
(1) It could just be taking time. Honestly, it's never as fast as you want it to be.
(2) It may be that the test versions got crawled originally, but now aren't being crawled (on the canonical isn't being processed). Check the cache date on the test page.
The big question is how they got crawled in the first place. It's often better to use some sort of cookie-based implementation so that Google never even sees the B version. That's how most of the A/B test implementations work (specifically to avoid this problem).
If it's just a couple of URLs and you can't shake them, you could request manual removal in GWT. That really depends on the scope and URL structure, though.
-
Good point, i was thinking of robots.txt, where the page would not eb read.
But I have not thought about that situation. i am not sure what search engines would do.
But still, just the canonical is needed.
-
A page that has a no index on it still gets crawled and therefore the rel=canonical directive is still "seen" by the bot --- so why wouldn't the rel=canonical pass the credit over?
-
Just the rel canonical
if you no index the page, the rel canonical can not be indexed and can not work
Rel canonical simply passes the credit for the content to the canonical page.
no index is like cutting off your hand because you have a splinter. links pointing to a non indexed page are puring link juice into thin air.
You can use a mete noindex , follow so that some of the link juice is returned, but canonical is best for duplicate content.
Actualy getting rid of the duplicate content is best
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
-
Pages not indexable?
Hello, I've been trying to find out why Google Search Console finds these pages non-indexable: https://www.visitflorida.com/en-us/eat-drink.html https://www.visitflorida.com/en-us/florida-beaches/beach-finder.html Moz and SEMrush both crawl the pages and show no errors but GSC comes back with, "blocked by robots.txt" but I've confirmed it is not. Anyone have any thoughts? 6AYn1TL
Technical SEO | | KenSchaefer0 -
Index bloating issue
Hello, In the last month, I noticed a huge spike in the number of pages indexed on my site, which I think is impacting my SEO quality score. While I've only have about 90 pages on my site map, the number of pages indexed jumped to 446, with about 536 pages being blocked by robots. At first we thought this might be due to duplicate product pages showing up in different categories on my site, but we added something to our robot.txt file to not index those pages. But the number has not gone down. I've tried to consult with our hosting vendor, but no one seems to be concerned or have any idea why there was such a big jump in the last month. Any insights or pointers would be so greatly appreciated, so that I can fix/improve my SEO as quickly as possible! Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Saison0 -
Canonical tag refers to itself (???)
Greetings Mozzers. I have seen a couple of pages that use canonical tags in a peculiar way, and I wanted to know if this way of using the tags was correct, harmless or dangerous: What I've seen is that on some pages like: www.example.com/page1 There's a canonical tag in the header that looks like this link href="http://ww.example.com/page1" rel="canonical" It looks as though the tag is "redirecting to itself", this seems useless (at least to me). Is there a case where this is actually a recommended practice? Will using the canonical tag in this way "hurt" the page's ranking potential? Cheers Jorge
Technical SEO | | Masoko-T0 -
Rel=Canonical Header Location
Hello, I've been trying to get our rel=canonical issues sorted out. A fellow named Ayaz very kindly pointed out that I'm trying to put the code into the wysisyg editor, but this might not be the best place to put the code. We are using Drupal 6. Where do I insert the code? head> <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/blog/my-awesome-blog-post"> Thanks!
Technical SEO | | OTSEO0 -
Will rel canonical tags remove previously indexed URLs?
Hello, 7 days ago, we implemented canonical tags to resolve duplicate content issues that had been caused by URL parameters. These "duplicate content" had already been indexed. Now that the URLs have rel canonical tags in place, will Google automatically remove from its index the other URLs with the URL parameters? I ask because we have been tracking the approximate number of URLs indexed by doing a site: search in Google, and we have barely noticed a decrease in URLs indexed. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | yacpro130 -
Canonical
I am seeing canonical implementation in many sites for non identical pages. Google honoring these implementation and didn't have any issue. Did anyone have different experience? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | gmk15670 -
Google indexing page with description
Hello, We rank fairly high for a lot of terms but Google is not indexing our descriptions properly. An example is with "arnold schwarzenegger net worth". http://www.google.ca/search?q=arnold+schwarzenegger+net+worth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a When we add content, we throw up a placeholder page first. The content gets added with no body content and the page only contains the net worth amount of the celebrity. We then go back through and re-add the descriptions and profile bio shortly after. Will that affect how the pages are getting indexed and is there a way we can get Google to go back to the page and try to index the description so it doesn't just appear as a straight link? Thanks, Alex
Technical SEO | | Anti-Alex0