How to choose the best canonical URL
-
In a duplicate content situation, and assuming that both rel=canonical and a 301 redirect pass link equity (I know there is still some speculation on this), how should you choose the "best" version of the URL to establish as the redirect target or authoritative URL?
For example, we have a series of duplicate pages on our site. Typically we choose the "cleanest" or shortest non-trailing-slash version of the URL as the canonical, but what if those pages are already established and have varying page authority/backlink profiles? The URLs are:
example.com/stores/locate/index?parameters=tags - PA = 54, Inbound Links = 259
example.com/stores/locate/index - PA = 60, Inbound Links = 302
example.com/stores/ - This is the version that currently ranks. PA = 42, Inbound Links = 3
example.com/stores - PA = 40, Inbound Links = 8
This might not really even matter, but in the interests of conserving as much SEO value as possible, which would you choose as either the 301 redirect target and/or the canonical version? My gut is to go with the URL that's already ranking (example.com/stores/) but curious if PA, backlinks, and trailing slashes should be considered also.
We of course would not 301 the URL with the tracking parameters.
Thanks for your help!
-
I like to keep the canonical neat so it looks better in the serps so as to encourage future users to click on it (people like clean, readable URLs), so I try not to use unnecessarily complex URLs. I have had very good luck in canonicalizing messy URLs with decent authority to new, completely non-ranking but clean, URLs and not only keeping but growing page authority.
And I have a fairly large site which is crawled regularly so I do value consistency--whichever page is set as the canonical will eventually become the ranking page, so current rank is not the biggest issue to me. In the long run, consistency will make your life (and the life of anyone who follows you in your present position) easier. (That being said, it wouldn't hurt anything if you prefer to use what is currently ranking.)
-
Thanks Linda! With regards to the trailing slash, typically we do set the non-trailing slash version as the canonical version across our site. So in this case, would you recommend that we stick with the non-trailing slash version for consistency's sake, even if it seems like it has lower SEO value?
Or would you go with the trailing slash version since it's the one currently ranking, and seems to have the more value; or even the longer URL with the highest PA/backlinks?
Thanks again!
-
In general, you will get the most links to a page via whatever URL is easiest for the linker to grab, so often it is not the prettiest, with parameters and such. But you really don't want that showing up in the serps, so don't use that as a canonical.
As far as the trailing slash/no slash issue, most people will use the no slash version if they are choosing how to add a link, even when the slash version would be more correct (as in your example) so you would also expect to see more links there.
But you mention that the slash version is the ranking version in your example. Is this mostly true throughout the site? (Maybe it is a Wordpress site that ends everything with slashes?) Then I'd stick with that. (I myself use the rule you first mentioned, the cleanest, non-slash version, but my site doesn't use trailing forward slashes.)
Do keep it consistent though. It would be a pain to always be checking pages to see what the canonical should be. The amount of SEO value you might lose is minimal.
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
-
URL Length Issue
MOZ is telling me the URLs are too long. I did a little research and I found out that the length of the URLs is not really a serious problem. In fact, others recommend ignoring the situation. Even on their blog I found this explanation: "Shorter URLs are generally preferable. You do not need to take this to the extreme, and if your URL is already less than 50-60 characters, do not worry about it at all. But if you have URLs pushing 100+ characters, there's probably an opportunity to rewrite them and gain value. This is not a direct problem with Google or Bing - the search engines can process long URLs without much trouble. The issue, instead, lies with usability and user experience. Shorter URLs are easier to parse, copy and paste, share on social media, and embed, and while these may all add up to a fractional improvement in sharing or amplification, every tweet, like, share, pin, email, and link matters (either directly or, often, indirectly)." And yet, I have these questions: In this case, why do I get this error telling me that the urls are too long, and what are the best practices to get this out? Thank You
Moz Pro | | Cart_generation1 -
What is the best semi-professional camcorder? Trying to shoot our own Whiteboard Friday!
I am trying to recreate Moz's Whiteboard Friday but their article on how to do it is from 2012 so the camera they used at the time of the article is no longer sold. Here is the link to the article I am referencing: https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog/tips-for-filming-whiteboard-presentations Any other tips on the best lighting equipment, microphones, etc. for shooting videos is also appreciated!
Moz Pro | | Fiyyazp0 -
Best Metrics but Consistently Outranked
I am hoping someone could help us determine why we generally rank quite poorly compared to our competition, despite leading in every single Competitive Metric. We get outranked on a term where the Page Grade gives us an "A", and we best the competitor on each of the metrics. Where would those with more experience suggest we start looking? rank.jpg
Moz Pro | | Yardboy0 -
What's my best strategy for Duplicate Content if only www pages are indexed?
The MOZ crawl report for my site shows duplicate content with both www and non-www pages on the site. (Only the www are indexed by Google, however.) Do I still need to use a 301 redirect - even if the non-www are not indexed? Is rel=canonical less preferable, as usual? Facts: the site is built using asp.net the homepage has multiple versions which use 'meta refresh' tags to point to 'default.asp'. most links already point to www Current Strategy: set the preferred domain to 'www' in Google's Webmaster Tools. set the Wordpress blog (which sits in a /blog subdirectory) with rel="canonical" to point to the www version. Ask programmer to add 301 redirects from the non-www pages to the www pages. Ask programmer to use 301 redirects as opposed to meta refresh tags & point all homepage versions to www.site.org. Does this strategy make the most sense? (Especially considering the non-indexed but existent non-www pages.) Thanks!!
Moz Pro | | kimmiedawn0 -
Current on-page best practices
Given all the recent talk about over optimization, when was the last time SEOMoz updated the on-page report card tool? Rand wrote an excellent piece on Perfect On-Page Optimization (which is great, and thanks) in summer 2009. Is that still best practice 3 years later (and post-Penguin/Panda)? If not, has the SEOMoz on-page report card tool been updated to reflect current thinking for on-page best-practices? I know the higher level concept is "write for humans, not for bots" but if you can do both (and not create an unreadable seo-frankenpage) then why not? Does getting an "A" grade wreak of over optimization now? Should I use the key phrase at the start of the title, h1, and strong (or bold) elements on a page? Should have an image with file name and alt text equal to (or containing at the start) the key phrase?
Moz Pro | | scanlin2 -
Some questions on Canonical tag AND 301 redirect
Hi everyone, I'm new here - always loved SEOMoz and glad to be part of the Pro community now. I have 2 questions regarding the Canonical URL tag. Some background info: We used to run an OsCommerce store, and recently migrated to Magento. In doing so, we right away created 301 redirects of the old category pages (OsCommerce) to the new category pages (Magento) via the Magento admin. Example: www.example.com/old-widget-category.html
Moz Pro | | yacpro13
301 redicrected to
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html In Magento admin, we have enabled the Canonical tag for all product and category pages. Here's how Magento sets up the Canonical tag: The URL of interest which we want to rank is:
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html However Magento sets up the canonical tag on this page to point to:
www.example.com/old-widget-category.html When using the SEOMoz On Page Report Card, it pick this up as an error because the Canonical tag is pointing to a different URL. However, if we dig a little deeper, we see that the URL being pointed to
www.example.com/old-widget-category.html
has a 301 redirect to
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html
which is the URL we wan to rank. So because we set up a 301 redirect of the old-page to the new-page, on the new-page the canonical tag points to the old-page. Question 1)
What are you opinions on this? Do you think this method of setting up the Canonical tag is acceptable? Second question... We use pagination for category pages, so if we have 50 products in one category, we would have 5 pages of 10 products. The URL's would be: www.example.com/new-widget-category.html (which is the SAME as ?p=1)
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=1
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=2
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=3
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=4
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=5 Now ALL the URLs above have the canonical tag set as:
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/new-widget-category" /> However, the content of each page (page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is different because different products are displayed. So far most what I read regarding the Canonical tag is that it is used for pages that have the same content but different URLs. I would hope that Google would combine the content of all 5 pages and view the result as a single URL www.example.com/new-widget-category Question 2) Is using the canonical tag appropriate in the case described above? Thanks !0 -
Will canonical tag get rid of duplicate page title errors?
I have a directory on my website, paginated in groups of 10. On page 2 of the results, the title tag is the same as the first page, as it is on the 3rd page and so on. This is giving me duplicate page title errors. If i use rel=canonical tags on the subsequent pages and href the first page of my results, will my duplicate page title warnings go away? thanks.
Moz Pro | | fourthdimensioninc0 -
Do crawl reports see canonical tags?
Greetings, I just redesigned my site, www.funderstanding.com, and have the old site pointing to the new site via canonical URLs. I had a new crawl test run and it showed a large amount of duplicate content. Does the SEO Moz crawl tool validate canonical urls and adjusts the duplicate content count or is this note considered? FYI, I sent from no duplicate content to having 865 errors since the redesign went up so that seems suspicious. I would think though that assuming the canonical tag were used properly, and I hope it is?, that this would not be a problem?? All help with this is most appreciated. Eric
Moz Pro | | Ericc220