Canonicalization
-
I understand what canonicalization does, however I'm a bit confused on one point.
Generally, of course it's used to determine the main article out of two which are identical.
But what happens to the keywords if the content isn't quite identical?
Example:-
Let's say the 'first page' it is optimised for 'racing cycles'.
The 'second page' is optimised for 'second-hand racing cycles'Let's assume that the 'first page' doesn't have any reference to 'used' or 'second-hand' so it would be essentially unrelated to the 'second page'.
If I then add an canonical tag to the 'second page' that points to the 'first page' in theory, the 'second page' will drop from the search rankings and pass any link authority back to the 'first page'
What I want to know is will the 'first page', then rank for the keywords that the second page used to rank for? (in this case 'second-hand racing cycles')
-
Hi Mike,
That new tool is very revealing and supports my experience that you can't dupe Google into ranking a different page just by canonicalization. Thanks!
Nigel
-
Hi seoman,
I think Nigel is spot-on here and has summarized the issues at hand well.
One thing to add: If you do deploy canonicals but are not sure how/when Google is respecting or ignoring them, the new "URL Inspector" tool in the new version of Search Console provides some helpful (and unprecedented) reporting detail on this, including URLs for "User-declared canonical" (what you set in your tag) and "Google-selected canonical" (the URL Google opted to treat as canonical).
While there doesn't seem to be any clarity as to why Google selected an alternative, sometimes the URL they picked provides a hint. We've never had this clarity from Google before on when they've opted to select a different canonical URL, so it's good to at least know when it's happening.
Best,
Mike -
Hi seoman
Canonicalisation was set up by Google originally to deal with pages which were basically the same but had two different URLs so for example:
website/cycles/racing-cycles
website/cycles/productid=123If the URL contained content that was the same then you would add a canonical on the second one pointing at the first. The second one would then drop from serps and the first one would be allowed to breathe and in most cases rise because the duplicate content was taken away.
People then started to use it in a more sophisticated way and as your example shows you could canonicalse 'second-hand racing cycles to racing-cycles. This would only be in a circumstance where you believed that the content on the second-hand page was so similar to the racing-cycles page that you would find it really hard to rank for both.
So you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles which could be a good move. The thing is that Google won't combine content from both pages it will simply rely on the content of the racing-cycles page to rank it. You must make sure that the racing-cycles page contains everything you would want both pages to be found for.
Now here's the problem.
If you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles and the two pages are very different then Google can start to distrust your canonicals and show the page in serps anyway! (serps = search engine results pages - so they have to be very similar. It would truly be a disaster if you canonicalise one to the other and they both still ranked (badly ) but I have seen this happen.
So the rule is:
1. Only canonicalise if both pages serve the same user intent
2. Make sure that the two pages are very similar otherwise Google can ignore the canonical
3. If they are just not similar build-up the content on second-hand cycles to take it away from just racing-cycles and have it as a separate page or sub-page of racing-cycles.The conclusion is that if you want racing-cycles to rank for all the keywords and phrases that second-hand cycles does, then include them and synonyms on the page.
I hope that helps
Nigel
-
If the contents are not identical, you don't need to worry about losing the rankings. Second-page ranking will be dropped if contents are same.
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
-
Canonicalize IP address
How can I cannocialize IP address for websites in Wordpress and Joomla?
Technical SEO | | ArthurRadtke0 -
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Well, what can I say question is on the title 😛
Technical SEO | | atakala
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Thank you mozzers.
I LOVE u guyz.0 -
Canonicalization help
Hi Moz Community, If I have two different sub-category pages: http://www.example.com/rings/anniversary-rings/
Technical SEO | | IceIcebaby
http://www.example.com/wedding/anniversary-rings/ And the first one is ranking for all KWs, should I add a rel=canonical to the second URL or leave it since it's slightly different? Or should I try and create different unique content for the second URL? Everything in terms of content is the same on both these pages except for the URLs, which aren't that different to begin with. Thanks for your help! -Reed0 -
Linking to AND canonicalizing to a page?
I am using cross domain rel=canonical to a page that is very similar to mine. I feel the page adds value to my site so I want users to go to it, but I ultimately want them to go to the page I'm canonicalizing to. So I am linking to that page as well. Anyone foresee any issues with doing this? And/or have other suggestions? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ThridHour0 -
I'm thinking I might need to canonicalize back to the home site and combine some content, what do you think?
I have a site that is mostly just podcasts with transcripts, and it has both audio and video versions of the podcasts. I also have a blog that I contribute to that links back to the video/transcript page of these podcasts. So this blog I contribute to has the exact same content (the podcast; both audio and video but no transcript) and then an audio and video version of this podcast. Each post of the podcast has different content on it that is technically unique but I'm not sure it's unique enough. So my question is, should I canonicalize the posts on this blog back to the original video/transcript page of the podcast and then combine the video with the audio posts. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Canonicalization Issue?
Good day! I am not sure if my company has a Canonicalization issue? When typing in www.cushingco.com the site redirects to http://www.cushingco.com/index.shtml A visitor can also type in http://cushingco.com/index.shtml into a web browser and land on our homepage (and the url will be http://www.cushingco.com/index.shtml) A majority of websites that link to our company point to: http://www.cushingco.com/index.shtml We are in the process of cleaning up citations and pulling together a content marketing strategy/editorial calendar. I want to be sure folks interested in linking to us have the right url. Please ask me any questions to help narrow down what we might be doing incorrectly. Thanks in advance!! Jon
Technical SEO | | SEOSponge0 -
Canonicalization of index.html - please help
I've read up on the subject but am new at this so I thought I would just put forth a simple question. We want our home page to be referred to as www.domain.com. We want the search engines to find and return this URl in search results. But the page has to have a name and the actual name is NOT to www.domain.com/index.html. This, I believe is what can cause duplicate cotnent issues (not really duplicate but perceived by the serach engines as duplicate content). Is it best to insert http://www.domain.com/" /> in the HEAD section of the index.html page or am I totally misunderstanding this concept?
Technical SEO | | TBKO0 -
Internal file extension canonicalization
Ok no doubt this is straightforward, however seem to be finding to hard to find a simple answer; our websites' internal pages have the extension .html. Trying to the navigate to that internal url without the .html extension results in a 404. The question is; should a 401 be used to direct to the extension-less url to future proof? and should internal links direct to the extension-less url for the same reason? Hopefully that makes sense and apologies for what I believe is a straightforward answer;
Technical SEO | | jg1000