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.
-
Thanks.
I think I will monitor for the next 2-3 weeks, and if there still is a lot of unwanted URLS with parameters in the index, I will start requesting removals.
-
You have two options here:
Let Google sort it out (which they will -- but it may take time)
Remove the unnecessary URLs yourself via Webmaster Tool's URL removal tool.
-
Hi Andrea,
yep - we did that.
7 days ago, we implemented the canonical tags because URLs such aswww.example.com/widget?color=blue
www.example.com/widget?size=largewere being indexed, along with the 'real' URL
We resubmitted the sitemap (which has all the 'real' URLs) as well.
At this time, many URLs with parameters are still indexed. I guess after reading this article:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/catastrophic-canonicalization
I was expecting the change to happen a little quicker...
I just want to confirm no other action is needed on our part.
I understand canonical tags would tell the crawlers which page to index when it finds them for the first time, but I also wanted to confirm that if all URLs are already indexed (because, at the time, no canonical tags were present) implementing the tags would be enough to have the unwanted URLs removed automatically from the index. -
A week isn't very long. It can take Google months to recrawl and drop URLs from an index. Google will figure it out, you just need to give it time. If you haven't done so, update your sitemap to include the tagged pages and resubmit via Google. That will signal them to recrawl your site and could speed up the process.
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
-
Duplicate content and rel canonicals?
Hi. I have a question relating to 2 sites that I manage with regards to duplicate content. These are 2 separate companies but the content is off a data base from the one(in other words the same). In terms of the rel canonical, how would we do this so that google does not penalise either site but can also have the content to crawl for both or is this just a dream?
Technical SEO | | ProsperoDigital0 -
Hashtag in url seems to remove the google plus one
My site has a catalogue page (catalog in US) with #anchors so that customers can get straight to them. I even link from other pages to the #anchor on the catalogue page. so I have for example: www.example.co.uk/catalogue.htm www.example.co.uk/catalogue.htm#blueitems www.example.co.uk/catalogue.htm#redtems I understand google doesn't index after the #, here is the post I found: http://moz.com/community/q/hashtag-anchor-text-within-content#reply_91192 So I shouldn't have an seo problem. BUT, if I navigate to www.example.co.uk/catalogue.htm and plusone the page it will show the plusone and then I navigate to www.example.co.uk/catalogue.htm#blueitems the plus one is gone. The same happens in reverse, if i plusone www.example.co.uk/catalogue.htm#redtems, then that plusone doesn't show in www.example.co.uk/catalogue.htm. I added rel=canonical and that fixed the plusone problem, now if you plus one /catalogue.htm#redtems it still shows on catalogue.htm This seems a bit extreme and did I do the right things??
Technical SEO | | Peter24680 -
Does rel= canonical combine link juice for 2 pages?
If two pages are very similar, and one should rel= canonical to the other, will the page authority pass from the page with rel= canonical to the target page? Also, what happens when you a page rel=canonical's to itself?
Technical SEO | | SkinLaboratory0 -
Is rel=canonical needed for URLs with Google Analytics query strings?
If a page URL has Google Analytics query strings, does the page need a canonical tag? e.g., something.com/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=mar-2013-nsl I have rel=canonical on all our pages because some of them will be accessed via URLs that have non-Google strings. The strings are only for marketing purposes, not for identifying a specific page to display. e.g., something.com/?source=acme Should I only implement the canonical tag on the pages that might have non-Google marketing strings in the URL?
Technical SEO | | WayneBlankenbeckler0 -
Rel=Canonical Help
The site in question is www.example.com/example. The client has added a rel=canonical tag to this page as . In other words, instead of putting the tag on the pages that are not to be canonical and pointing them to this one, they are doing it backwards and putting the same URL as the canonical one as the page they are putting the tag on. They have done this with thousands of pages. I know this is incorrect, but my question is, until the issue is resolved, are these tags hurting them at all just being there?
Technical SEO | | rock220 -
How can I best find out which URLs from large sitemaps aren't indexed?
I have about a dozen sitemaps with a total of just over 300,000 urls in them. These have been carefully created to only select the content that I feel is above a certain threshold. However, Google says they have only indexed 230,000 of these urls. Now I'm wondering, how can I best go about working out which URLs they haven't indexed? No errors are showing in WMT related to these pages. I can obviously manually start hitting it, but surely there's a better way?
Technical SEO | | rango0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Some site pages are removed from Google Index
Hello, Some pages of my clients website are removed from Google Index. We were in top 10 position for some keywords but now I cannot find those pages neither in top 1000. Any idea what to do in order to get these pages back? thank you
Technical SEO | | besartbajrami0