Rel canonical on other page instead of duplicate page. How Google responds?
-
Hi all,
We have 3 pages for same topics. We decided to use rel canonical and remove old pages from search to avoid duplicate content. Out of these 3 pages....1 and 2 type of pages have more similar content where 3 type don't have. Generally we must use rel canonical between 1 and 2. But I am wondering what happens if I canonical between 1 and 3 while 2 has more similar content? Will Google respects it or penalise as we left the most similar page and used other page for canonical.
Thanks
-
Thanks for the answers and suggestions. I have more questions raised in my mind and I put them in the below different thread very clearly. Please reply there.
-
We know of a case from early 2017 in which Google stopped honoring rel=canonical for a large number of pairs of pages that were not verbatim duplicates. Shortly after that all of those pages were indexed and displayed in the SERPs.
-
This sounds like you will be pointing/canonicalizing the two similar pages to the third one that is different from them? I am not quite sure why you would want to do that.
If you don't want the 1/2 content available but the pages have some authority (good links), 301 redirect those pages to 3 (if the topic is close enough and you don't have a more similar page) or if they are not strong pages, just remove them and let them 404.
If you do want the 1/2 content available on your site, but don't want it competing with page 3 in search, you could redirect 2 to 1 and rewrite 1 to make it stronger for whatever it is that makes it different from 3, so both 1 and 3 could potentially rank (for different things). Or you could redirect 2 to 1 and noindex 1.
Canonicals are intended for pages with very similar content, however people sometimes do use them as a type of redirect for not-so-similar pages. The problem with this is that a canonical is just a suggestion to Google and, as you mention, Google may ignore the canonical, especially in a situation like this.
-
HI,
Thanks for the immediate response. I agree with your analysis and conclusion. What if the duplicate page we are leaving is redirected to the page we are pointing?
I meant "1 will be pointed to 3 instead of 2" and "2 will be redirected 3"
How this works?
Thanks
-
I wouldn't do that.
By adding a canonical tag to the page you kind of tell google to ignore it. So, in this case, you have pages 1 and 2 with similar content and 3 with different content. You add canonical to page 3 referring to page 1. Google will now ignore page 3 (the one with different content) and will still index pages 1 and 2 which are duplicates.
You will not solve the duplicate problem, and you will also harm the unique page.
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
-
How often does Google review Featured Snippets? What do you think?
Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows how often Google review Featured Snippets and if there is a way to find out? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | Chris29181 -
Rel canonical on every page of wordpress CMS website
Can we have rel=canonical across all pages of a wordpress CMS website? I don't know why same page has been as canonical but not for duplicate pages
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Any Google Algorithm update?
Did Google release any seo update in last couple of days? My client is seeing 33% low traffic. The site is hyper-local marketplace website in India.
Algorithm Updates | | Avin1230 -
Google is forcing a 301 by truncating our URLs
Just recently we noticed that google has indexed truncated urls for many of our pages that get 301'd to the correct page. For example, we have:
Algorithm Updates | | mmac
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html as the url linked everywhere and that's the only version of that page that we use. Google somehow figured out that it would still go to the right place via 301 if they removed the html filename from the end, so they indexed just: http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/ The 301 is not new. It used to 404, but (probably 5 years ago) we saw a few links come in with the html file missing on similar urls so we decided to 301 them instead thinking it would be helpful. We've preferred the longer version because it has the name in it and users that pay attention to the url can feel more confident they are going to the right place. We've always used the full (longer) url and google used to index them all that way, but just recently we noticed about 1/2 of our urls have been converted to the shorter version in the SERPs. These shortened urls take the user to the right page via 301, so it isn't a case of the user landing in the wrong place, but over 100,000 301s may not be so good. You can look at: site:www.eventective.com/usa/massachusetts/bedford/ and you'll noticed all of the urls to businesses at the top of the listings go to the truncated version, but toward the bottom they have the full url. Can you explain to me why google would index a page that is 301'd to the right page and has been for years? I have a lot of thoughts on why they would do this and even more ideas on how we could build our urls better, but I'd really like to hear from some people that aren't quite as close to it as I am. One small detail that shouldn't affect this, but I'll mention it anyway, is that we have a mobile site with the same url pattern. http://m.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html We did not have the proper 301 in place on the m. site until the end of last week. I'm pretty sure it will be asked, so I'll also mention we have the rel=alternate/canonical set up between the www and m sites. I'm also interested in any thoughts on how this may affect rankings since we seem to have been hit by something toward the end of last week. Don't hesitate to mention anything else you see that may have triggered whatever may have hit us. Thank you,
Michael0 -
Do images count as duplicate content.
Hi We have a site called buypropertyanywhere. We sell properties all over the world but at times we use the same images of complexes. Would Google see this as copying from each other therefore duplicate content. Thanks in advance
Algorithm Updates | | Feily0 -
Google has indexed a lot of test pages/junk from the development days.
With hind site I understand that this could have been avoided if robots.txt was configured properly. My website is www.clearvisas.com, and is indexed with both the www subdomain and with out. When I run site:clearvisas.com in Google I get 1,330 - All junk from the development days. But when I run site:www.clearvisas.com in Google I get 66 - these results all post development and more in line with what I wanted to be indexed. Will 1,330 junk pages hurt my seo? Is it possible to de-index them and should I? If the answer is yes to any of the questions how should I proceed? Kind regards, Fuad
Algorithm Updates | | Fuad_YK0 -
Rel="author" - This could be KickAss!
Google is now encouraging webmasters to attribute content to authors with rel="author". You can read what google has to say about it here and here. A quote from one of google's articles.... When Google has information about who wrote a piece of content on the web, we may look at it as a signal to help us determine the relevance of that page to a user’s query. This is just one of many signals Google may use to determine a page’s relevance and ranking, though, and we’re constantly tweaking and improving our algorithm to improve overall search quality. I am guessing that google might use it like this..... If you have several highly successful articles about "widgets", your author link on each of them will let google know that you are a widget expert. Then when you write future articles about widgets, google will rank them much higher than normal - because google knows you are an authority on that topic. If it works this way the rel="author" attribute could be the equivalent of a big load of backlinks for highly qualified authors. What do you think about this? Valuable? Also, do you think that there is any way that google could be using this as a "content registry" that will foil some attempts at content theft and content spinning? Any ideas welcome! Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | EGOL3
