Rel="canonical" questions?
-
On our site we have some similar pages for example in our parts page we have the link to all the electrical parts you can see here http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/c/43/53/160/Electrical and we have a very similar page going from our accessories page to electrical here http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/c/43/72/221/Electrical We are thinking about putting rel="canonical" from the accessories electrical page to the parts one. We would do this for several pages not just this one.
Thoughts???
-
We put rel=canonical on it. Now there are several other reasons that we have way to many pages indexed. Big project coming soon, I hope!
-
Oh, ouch - yeah that's definitely has potential to spin out of control. I think rel=canonical would actually be great there, because the product page really is 100% duplicated.
-
just read your article
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/duplicate-content-in-a-post-panda-world
The Indexation “Cap”
Similarly, there’s no set “cap” to how many pages of a site Google will index. There does seem to be adynamic limit, though, and that limit is relative to the authority of the site. If you fill up your index with useless, duplicate pages, you may push out more important, deeper pages. For example, if you load up on 1000s of internal search results, Google may not index all of your product pages. Many people make the mistake of thinking that more indexed pages is better. I’ve seen too many situations where the opposite was true. All else being equal, bloated indexes dilute your ranking ability.
I liked it thanks!
-
Just started here about 1 month ago. We are thinking that it is the search causing this issue. We should have it fixed in the next few weeks. For example if you go to http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/search?term=dirt+bikes and then click on the first result. http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/p/43/53/210/1157/-/25928/Dirt-Tricks-KTM-Timing-Chain-Tensioner/dirt+bikes it has the search result as part of the url for tracking. I am thinking this could be causing hundreds of thousands of urls. We will turn this into a parametersso they can still track it but google will not index it. Any thoughts on this, or maybe it is to far off topic. Thanks for all your input.
-
I was about to say that 85 sounds significant, but then I noticed that Google has indexed 1.13M pages on your site. For your link profile/authority (which is respectable but still pretty medium-sized) that's a massive index. I strongly suspect you have a ton of duplicate content that's completely unrelated to this. You've probably got bigger fish to fry, honestly.
One thing you might want to look at is your search pagination, as that can easily spin out thousands of pages. Unfortunately, really sorting this out takes a pretty thorough audit.
-
of the first pair (ones like these ttp://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/c/43/53/160/Electrical http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/c/43/72/221/Electrical) around around 15 in each Classification and there are 5 classification so 75.
of the second pair (like this
http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/m/43/53/2/ATV-Parts-KAWASAKI
http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/m/43/72/2/ATV-Accessories-KAWASAKI
) about 17 per classification so 85.
Third level like (http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/v/43/72/10864/ATV-KAWASAKI/BRUTE-FORCE-300-2013 http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/v/43/53/10864/ATV-KAWASAKI/BRUTE-FORCE-300-2013) there are about 1100-1300
-
How many pairs of these duplicates are there across the whole site?
-
I agree one URL would be best; however, they said how the system is set up not really possible right now.
There are only two page that are the same and they are the same here on the next leave down too.
http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/m/43/53/2/ATV-Parts-KAWASAKI
http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/m/43/72/2/ATV-Accessories-KAWASAKI
So you think if there are just two page that are the same it is nothing to worry about? I know adding one or two paragraph of good content not just seo copy to the http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/c/43/53/160/Electrical http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/c/43/72/221/Electrical Having one focus on parts and the other one accessories. I know that is not my ideal situation but a possibility. I would rather just have one URL like you suggested.
Thoughts?
-
Yeah, I think Matthew's right about the duplication - it looks like these are basically landing on the same results. It's not a disaster, but it's certainly going to look like thin content. I guess I'd want to step back and ask if these two paths are really necessary - could they converge on one URL if you're really serving up exactly the same products? The best canonicalization solution is ultimately not to have multiple URLs.
The canonical tag is slightly odd here, just because the pages aren't 100% duplicates, but it's probably fine. Honestly, a lot of it boils down to how many search pages you've got across the site and how many are duplicated. If you're talking about half-a-dozen, it's probably not worth worrying about. If you're talking about hundreds of pages, then cleaning up your architecture and removing these duplicates could have real dividends for SEO (and possibly make life easier for your visitors, too).
-
Your welcome.
Have a great day.
-
Thanks for your input.
-
There are a few things here that I think you should be aware of.
1 if you leave it like that, you will have duplicate content issues, because both of those pages are the same, the pictures are just in different places.
2. The page http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/c/43/72/221/Electrical is a pr3 and the other is a pr1. I would personally keep the pr3 page and 301 redirect the other page to that page so you no longer have those duplicate content issues on your site. That way if you have anyone still visit that page through old links they will still end up on that pr3 page.
3. The url structure, is a bit messy for your site. I generally advise others to have something a long these lines. http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/electrical this is an SEO friendly url. I am not saying the ones you have now won't work, it's just a bit messy that's all. Personally though if your getting good traffic to it, I wouldn't mess with it at all. Now if you were just starting out I would say change them asap.
In the future when making new pages, I would set it up to make a proper url structure.
Have a great day.
Matthew Boley
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
-
Internal Clicks and CTR. Is REL=canonical better than Noindex in this case?
I currently have a search facility in a website that noindexes the search results which is ok. But when you click one of the results it takes you to a product which is noindexes as it has URL params. e.g. https://www.visitliverpool.com/accommodation/albion-guest-house-p305431?bookurl=%2Fbook-online%3Fstage%3Dunitsel%26isostartdate%3D2017-10-31%26nights%3D1%26roomReq_1_adults%3D1%26NumRoomReqs%3D1%26fuzzy%3D0%26product%3D305431 The product also exists as this which is indexed : - https://www.visitliverpool.com/accommodation/albion-guest-house-p305431 Should I canonicalise is this instance instead of no index? Does CTR apply to internal links? i.e. Does search console consider internal clicks? Are internal clicks a ranking factor?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Andrew-SEO0 -
Http to https Canonical Question
Hello Fellow Moz Friends I have recently went from http to https for the website. Do I keep my canonicals at http or make all https? Will this affect ranking signals? Anything I should be looking out for? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Carwrapsolutions0 -
Google's Stance on "Hidden" Content
Hi, I'm aware Google doesn't care if you have helpful content you can hide/unhide by user interaction. I am also aware that Google frowns upon hiding content from the user for SEO purposes. We're not considering anything similar to this. The issue is, we will be displaying only a part of our content to the user at a time. We'll load 3 results on each page initially. These first 3 results are static, meaning on each initial page load/refresh, the same 3 results will display. However, we'll have a "Show Next 3" button which replaces the initial results with the next 3 results. This content will be preloaded in the source code so Google will know about it. I feel like Google shouldn't have an issue with this since we're allowing the user action to cycle through all results. But I'm curious, is it an issue that the user action does NOT allow them to see all results on the page at once? I am leaning towards no, this doesn't matter, but would like some input if possible. Thanks a lot!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kirmeliux0 -
Rel Canonical attribute order
So the position of the attribute effect the rel canonical tags' ability to function? is the way I see it across multiple documents and websites. Having a discussion with someone in the office and there is a website with it set up as: Will that cause any problems? The website is inquestion still has both pages indexed within Google using the SITE:domain.com/product as well as SITE:domain.com/category/product
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jasondexter0 -
Use of Rel=Canonical
I have been pondering whether I am using this tag correctly or not. We have a custom solution which lays out products in the typical eCommerce style with plenty of tick box filters to further narrow down the view. When I last researched this it seemed like a good idea to implement rel=canonical to point all sub section pages at a 'view-all' page which returns all the products unfiltered for that given section. Normally pages are restricted down to 9 results per page with interface options to increase that. This combined with all the filters we offer creates many millions of possible page permutations and hence the need for the Canonical tag. I am concerned because our view-all pages get large, returning all of that section's product into one place.If I pointed the view-all page at say the first page of x results would that defeat the object of the view-all suggestion that Google made a few years back as it would require further crawling to get at all the data? Alternatively as these pages are just product listings, would NoIndex be a better route to go given that its unlikely they will get much love in Google anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | motiv80 -
What our peoples list from from 1 to 10 the most important "on page" Factors
we are all at different stages in our SEO and all have different skills and experiences would like to see if people have the same list or similar with this question.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ReSEOlve0 -
Alexa site title shows as "302 Found" on search result pages
If you search for the site "ixl.com" in Alexa, for some reason, it's showing the site as "302 Found" instead of showing the website name, IXL. If you drill into that, it shows the site as ixl.com, but underneath that, it says "302 Found" again. Every other site I search for seems to show the site's name properly. I have no idea where it's getting this "302 Found" from. Does anyone know how to fix this? Here's a link directly to the search results page: http://www.alexa.com/search?q=ixl.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | john4math0 -
Canonical tag question
Suppose a site has two pages ( Page A ) and Page B. Both of them have pagerank, but duplicate content. The page A is ranked for keyword "seo india" and page B is ranked for keyword "seo services". If i implement canonical tag on page B, does 1. The pagerank of page B will be transfered to Page A ? 2. Does the site A now ranks for keyword "seo servicies " ( for which Page B was ranking earlier )
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050