Rel=Canonical vs. No Index
-
Ok, this is a long winded one. We're going to spell out what we've seen, then give a few questions to answer below, so please bear with us!
We have websites with products listed on them and are looking for guidance on whether to use rel=canonical or some version of No Index for our filtered product listing pages. We work with a couple different website providers and have seen both strategies used.
Right now, one of our web providers uses No Index, No Follow tags and Moz alerted us to the high frequency of these tags. We want to make sure our internal linking structure is sound and we are worried that blocking these filtered pages is keeping our product pages from being as relevant as they could be. We've seen recommendations to use No Index, Follow tags instead, but our other web provider uses a different method altogether.
Another vendor uses a rel=canonical strategy which we've also seen when researching Nike and Amazon's sites. Because these are industry leading sites, we're wondering if we should get rid of the No Index tags completely and switch to the canonical strategy for our internal links. On that same provider's sites, we've found rel=canonical tags used after the first page of our product listings, and we've seen recommendations to use rel=prev and rel=next instead.
With all that being said, we have three questions:
1)Which strategy (rel=canonical vs. No Index) do you recommend as being optimal for website crawlers and boosting our site relevance?
2)If we should be using some version of No Index, should we use Follow or No Follow?
2)Depending on the product, we have multiple pages of products for each category. Should we use rel=prev & rel=next instead of rel=canonical among the pages after page one?
Thanks in advance!
-
Oleg, I like your thought process on this.
I am dealing with this exact issue and have 2 brilliant minds arguing over what is best approach. In reviewing the above, I agree with the approach. Canonical links to the first page of "Honda-civic-coupe" makes perfect sense.
Total we use prev-next, but self-refer rel=canonical the URL's on subsequent pages, but are not no-indexing page 2+. The negative impact is that Google will from time to time, add as site-links to the #1 search result a pagination page (e.g., 6 ) and some pagination pages are indexed. Landing page traffic to these is near zero. Our decision is determining whether to non-index or rel-canonical to the first page.
The pages in my case are new home communities where we might be listing all the different communities that are luxury communities in the specific city. While they are all this same category, as a group can be described similarly, and will have near duplicate metas, each community (list element) is unique. So, page #1 can be viewed as quite differentiated.
Here are the arguments:
-
Rel=canonical to the first page. As much as we think each shingle (i.e., page of 15 communities) is unique. The 15 Descriptions, amenities, location, what it is near, things you can do there are unique, As a group it can be considered just a list of communities. By pointing back to page #1 we are saying this is a collecting list of 3 pages of luxury communities in a given city. This will concentrate authority to the page that is most relevant.
-
No-index the subsequent pages. When Google said near duplicate, they really were considering limiting that scope to pages where the items are exactly the same or nearly the same. If the individual page content due to the differentiated product can be seen as unique content simply due to the in-page list elements, they are not really duplicate and rel=canonical is inappropriate. To use rel=canonical would at some point be viewed as manipulative and over-reaching use of rel=canonical. While this may cause this page to rank better, it may be considered not okay at some point.
Option #1 would seem to have a better immediate rank impact, but is there some real risk that it would be considered manipulative since the pages would not look to Google as near enough duplicates?
Glad to hear what you or others have to say.
-
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the input - we'll look into making those updates!
-
Yes, you would canonical to that searchnew.aspx page.
In this scenario, I would set up mod_rewrite to create "Category" page for each specific model so you can rank for more pages.
e.g /model/Honda-Civic-Coupe/ would be a static page and you can canonical all of the other filters to their respective pages.
-
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for the answers and advice - here's an example of a filtered inventory listings page on one of our sites that isn't currently using a rel=canonical on it. Would you just have the canonical point back to the main "searchnew" page? If you have any other insights to improvements to this page's structure, please feel free to send suggestions.
http://www.leithhonda.com/searchnew.aspx?model=Civic+Coupe
Thanks all!
-
I would say using rel canonical would be the best. I am guessing your filter system is using a anchor or a hashbang? We only do ecommerce work and we typically just have the canonical of the filter page pointed to the category that is being filtered. The reason being is that you don't want to reduce the chances of the category ranking in the serps.
But honestly like Oleg said, the site would need to be seen to give a 100% best possible answer. We have used several different strategies with our clients. Some involve actually rewriting the filter urls as landing pages and trying to rank them as well.
-
Hey Oleg,
Thanks for the response. We're actually looking for info on our product listings pages, or search results pages within the site. Would this advice still apply to those pages?
-
Hard to give answer without seeing the site... ideally, you don't use canonicals or noindex and instead have 1 page per product.
-
Canonical is better overall i'd say - as long as the two pages you are merging are (almost) identical
-
keep the follow, doesn't hurt and only boosts pages it links to
-
Again, tough to understand but sounds like you should use canonical (pagination basically "merges" the paginated pages into 1 long one so to speak, so if you have the same content over and over again, best to canonical)
-
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
-
Sudden Drop in Index Status on GSC
Hi all, We've seen a sudden drop in index status on GSC from 19,000 to 12,000. Rankings, referring domains, organic traffic etc. have not changed. However, we have implemented a huge number of redirects and done a site migration from http to https in the past year. Could this have an effect? Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | SMVSEO0 -
Last click conversions (Assisted conversions report vs. Channels report)
Hi Mozzers, Does anyone know why the last click / direct conversions (by channel) in the 'assisted conversion report in Google Analytics do not match the conversions in the Channels report. I thought conversion data in the channels report was last click / direct conversions? Thanks for your help!
Reporting & Analytics | | A_Q0 -
Different PA in the same URL with canonical differences
Hi, In google listings the url appears like www.enviosadomicilio.com/mexico/ With Moz tools the PA of this are 1. But analizing www.enviosadomicilio.com/mexico PA is 15. What do you recommend to do?. Another point is in Link tools of MOZ www.enviosadomicilio.com/mexico/ said 301 and the redirection is with de root www.enviosadomicilio.com but in codes neither .htaccess we have this redirection. We are hosting in goddady is normal this? thanks
Reporting & Analytics | | ramirez_salvador0 -
Sudden Increase In Number of Pages Indexed By Google Webmaster When No New Pages Added
Greetings MOZ Community: On June 14th Google Webmaster tools indicated an increase in the number of indexed pages, going from 676 to 851 pages. New pages had been added to the domain in the previous month. The number of pages blocked by robots increased at that time from 332 (June 1st) to 551 June 22nd), yet the number of indexed pages still increased to 851. The following changes occurred between June 5th and June 15th: -A new redesigned version of the site was launched on June 4th, with some links to social media and blog removed on some pages, but with no new URLs added. The design platform was and is Wordpress. -Google GTM code was added to the site. -An exception was made by our hosting company to ModSecurity on our server (for i-frames) to allow GTM to function. In the last ten days my web traffic has decline about 15%, however the quality of traffic has declined enormously and the number of new inquiries we get is off by around 65%. Click through rates have declined from about 2.55 pages to about 2 pages. Obviously this is not a good situation. My SEO provider, a reputable firm endorsed by MOZ, believes the extra 175 pages indexed by Google, pages that do not offer much content, may be causing the ranking decline. My developer is examining the issue. They think there may be some tie in with the installation of GTM. They are noticing an additional issue, the sites Contact Us form will not work if the GTM script is enabled. They find it curious that both issues occurred around the same time. Our domain is www.nyc-officespace-leader. Does anyone have any idea why these extra pages are appearing and how they can be removed? Anyone have experience with GTM causing issues with this? Thanks everyone!!!
Reporting & Analytics | | Kingalan1
Alan0 -
Switch to www from non www preference negatively hit # pages indexed
I have a client whose site did not use the www preference but rather the non www form of the url. We were having trouble seeing some high quality inlinks and I wondered if the redirect to the non www site from the links was making it hard for us to track. After some reading, it seemed we should be using the www version for better SEO anyway so I made a change on Monday but had a major hit to the number of pages being indexed by Thursday. Freaking me out mildly. What are people's thoughts? I think I should roll back the www change asap - or am I jumping the gun?
Reporting & Analytics | | BrigitteMN0 -
Question on correctly using rel="canonical
OK I have a question for the community here. All links below are just used as examples and no relationship or real campaigns are being used with any websites named below. Lets say that my domain is abc.com/whiskey/jack-daniels-whiskey/Gentleman-Jack/ but for Google Analytics tracking purposes I gave another website a tracking link for a banner that is as follows http://abc.com/whiskey/jack-daniels-whiskey/Gentleman-Jack/?utm_source=jackdanials&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=Gentleman-Jack&utm_campaign=holiday%2Bpromotion Since the original URL to my site is http://abc.com/whiskey/jack-daniels-whiskey/Gentleman-Jack and Google will then spider the other site picking up my tracking link within the banner which also contains my original URL, can it cause issues with duplicate content and if so what is the best way to use rel="canonical in this case or would you handle this issue in a different way? Thanks in advance for all your help.
Reporting & Analytics | | DRTBA0 -
List all URL's indexed by google
Hi all i need a list of all urls google has indexed from my site i want this in excel format or csv how do i go about getting this thanks in advance
Reporting & Analytics | | Will_Craig0 -
Google URL Builder Extension showing up as indexed pages.
Hello, I was reviewing my PRO member campaign report. I see that I am getting warnings for too long of URLs. However, these URLs are my website URL with the Google URL builder tracking code that I set up for my marketing campaings. Why are these being indexed? For example: www.website.com/?utm_source=Oct+Newsletter&utm_medium=e.... Thank you, Kristen
Reporting & Analytics | | KLFeichtner0