Canonical tag - but Title and Description are slightly different

[partnerf]

I am building a new SEO site with a "Silo" / Themed architecture.  I have a travel website selling hotel reservations.  I list a hotel page under a city page - example, www.abc.com/Dallas/Hilton.html   Then I use that same property under a segment within the city - example www.abc.com/Dallas/Downtown/Hilton.html, so there are two URLs with the same content

Both pages are identical, except I want to customize the Title and Description.  I want to customize the title and description to build a consistent theme - for example the /Downtown/Hilton page will have the words "Near Downtown" in the Title and Description, while the primary city Hilton page will not.  So I have two questions about this.

1. First, is it okay to use a canonical tag if the Title and Description are slightly different?  Everything else is identical.

2. If so, will Google crawl and comprehend the unique Title and Description on the "Downtown" silo?

I want Google to see that I have several "supporting" pages to my main landing page(s).  I want to present to Google 5 supporting pages in each silo that each has a supporting keyword theme.  But I'm not sure if Google will consider content of pages that point to a different page using the canonical tag.

Please see this supporting example:  http://d.pr/i/aQPv

Thanks for your insights.

Rob

[partnerf]

Kurt,

Just wanted to let you know, I decided to go with option 1 above.  This is the long route, but the purest form of SEO.  It will cost me more money up front, and will take time to develop, but I think its our best bet for the long run.

Thanks again for your help.  I understand the canonical tag better now.

Rob

[partnerf]

Kurt,

Thanks again for your insights.  I appreciate you taking the time to comprehend my question so thoroughly.  I am still learning this, and its good to get your input.  I am leaning toward doing this without a canonical tag.  I still feel that by adding the canonical tag it should send a clear signal to Google that I'm not trying to manipulate the results, as I'm effectively removing those pages from the index.  But if they "think" (and thats all that matters) I'm trying something wrong, then its probably not worth it.

I'll have to think about what my best course of action is, as this will have a big impact on how I proceed.

Thanks again for your input.  I do appreciate it.

Best,

Rob

[Kurt_Steinbrueck]

The canonical tag is telling Google to treat that canonical URL as the URL you want them to consider for the content.  It can be used to give credit when you use someone else's content, point Google to the page you want them to list when you have duplicates of your own content, or assist in moving pages from one URL to another (adding a 301 redirect later)  Honestly, I've never heard of someone trying to do what you are suggesting.  I'm not sure exactly how Google would treat that.

As to whether Google would consider what you're doing as spam, it's a matter of degrees.  If you're doing it a lot, then it's possible they might apply a manual action.  If it's not enough to warrant an action, they may just disregard all but one of the duplicate versions of each page.  Maybe nothing will happen and Google won't notice.  What I can tell you is that they would consider it manipulation if they notice it.

The simple fact is this.  You could just have one version of the supporting pages and link to that one version from each of the relevant main pages.  There are only two reasons you'd want different versions of the supporting pages.  Either you want to hone the content to get the best conversion rate from users, in which case each page wouldn't actually be duplicate, or you want to manipulate the search rankings by creating a bunch of duplicates of the exact same page to target different keywords.  Clearly, since you don't want to work on the content of each version, you are solely doing this to manipulate the search rankings when the same user experience could be achieved with one copy of the page.

Please also understand that this isn't personal.  I don't have a problem with what you're doing.  Just be aware that it comes with risks.  If Google discovers it, they may treat a bunch of your pages as duplicates and may even penalize your site and you be back in the forums in a few months asking how to deal with the fact that your rankings just disappeared overnight.  You just have to decide if your willing to take that risk.

[partnerf]

One more thought.

I could see Google seeing my strategy as manipulation - trying to rank the same piece of content for multiple keywords if I didn't have a canonical tag on the page.

But if I reference one page and designate it as canonical I would think that removes the spam aspect.  Do you agree with this?

What I'm not sure about though is how does Google read a page with a canonical tag on it.  Will they ignore the unique title and description - and I lose the "supporting" pages on my other silos.

I appreciate your inputs on this - and i'm not trying to argue, just hoping (maybe in vain) I can find an alternative to the 2 options you present above.

Best,

Rob

[partnerf]

Thanks for your response Kurt.

This is slowly coming to me.  But if I have five duplicate versions of a hotel property page, and reference one of them as canonical, I would be fine if Google disregarded the other 4 as I only need to rank for one of those pages.

What I do want to accomplish though, is get a ranking boost for the main page in the silo(s).  I'm hoping that the supporting pages (which are duplicates and have a canonical tag on them) will provide some lift to the top level page in the silo.

Example:  keyword "hotels in downtown Dallas"  www.abc.com/hotels-in-dallas/downtown/   to get a boost from supporting pages which also have the term "near downtown Dallas" in their title / description.

Are you saying that Google will not even recognize the unique title / description of the property pages below - because they have a canonical tag referencing a different page?

If that is the case, then you are right, I am left with the two options you give above.  I don't really like either scenario as option 1 is a lot more work and money, and option 2 really dilutes my theme.  Are you sure that Google considers what I want to do as spam - even though its completely legit?  Just want to double check.  

Best,

Rob

[Kurt_Steinbrueck]

Hi Rob,

I understand what you're trying to do and why; however, you need to understand that it's something the search engines (Google in particular) don't like.  Creating a bunch of duplicate pages to try to target different, similar keywords is considered manipulation, even if each of those keywords are relevant.  The search engines want unique content for different pages.

In regards to the canonical tag, the pages don't have to be completely exact to use the canonical tag.  After all, it's recommended that if one site uses content from another, they use the canonical tag to give the original site credit.  But there will be lots of different content on the two pages since they'll have unique headers, navigation menus, footers, and possibly title and description tags.  However, using canonical tags the way you are suggesting will defeat your own purpose.  If you have 5 different duplicate versions of the page and setup canonical tags on each to point to one of them, Google is only going to consider that one page.  The others will most likely be disregarded.  Thus, you still won't get the rankings boost for the optimized title and description tags on the other duplicate versions.

It seems to me you have two options that don't run afowl of Google.

1. Create different pages for each silo and have unique content for each of those pages.  Not only does this give the search engines what they want, but you have more opportunity to optimize the content for the keywords you are targeting.  Of course it will take a lot more work.
2. Have only one version of each page, but optimize it for each of the targeted keywords.  This is probably less effective since the optimization will get diluted by targeting so many keywords in the content, but it will be a lot less work.

Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com

[partnerf]

Thanks Federico,

I think I understand what your recommending.  I just have one more thing to clarify.

I plan to build landing pages for a variety of city hotel related terms such as:

"hotels in Dallas"
"hotels in downtown Dallas"
"hotels with suites in Dallas"
"three star hotels in Dallas"
"hotels with pools in Dallas"

Its quite possible that one hotel fits in all of those silos.  So my thought was I would write content for a property one time, and re-use that page in multiple silos.  I am not trying to mislead search engines, just optimizing for a variety of "facts" about that property.

I know the canonical tag can be used across domains, so I'm assuming its fine to use it here, even though there is a slight variation in the Title and Description.  What I don't know is whether or not Google will read a page when it encounters a canonical tag, or does it simply stop at that point, and reference the root page.  I'm hoping that I can build a consistently themed silo - all pages with a common keyword.  Given that Google allows users to navigate to the URL of pages that have a canonical tag on them, I'm hoping that Google sees that content, and recognizes me as a subject matter expert.

If I can't use the canonical tag, then I would be forced to write different content multiple times for the same property page...

Thanks for your advice on this.

Rob

[FedeEinhorn]

Hi Rob,

I personally wouldn't go the way you are heading... that could be seen by Google as a technique to manipulate search engine results (which you stated it is).

But to respond to your question, why don't you use the "definitive" version of the page as the canonical? If the one including "near downtown" is the most accurate (and complete one as I guess the hotel IS near downtown) then you should go with that and noindex the alternatives... although I know that's not your intention, that is the way it should be done.

Hope that helps!