301 Redirect or Canonical Tag or Leave Them Alone? Different Pages - Similar Content
-
We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are:
**Version 1 -- Preferred Version: **
http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx
Title = California Business for Sale Ads - California Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker
Version 2:
http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-California.aspx
Title = California Business for Sale | 3124 California Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net
Version 3:
http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml
Title = California Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - California Business for Sale
While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical. We were wondering if it would make good sense to either (A) 301 redirect Versions 2 and 3 to the preferred Version 1 page or (B) put Canonical Tags on Versions 2 and 3 labeling Version 1 as the preferred version. We have this issue for all 50 U.S. States -- I've mentioned California here but the same applies for Alabama through Wyoming - same issue.
Given that there are 3 different flavors and all are showing up in the Search Results -- some on the same 1st page of results -- which probably is a good thing for now -- should we do a 301 redirect or a Canonical Tag on Versions 2 and 3? Seems like with Google cracking down on duplicate content, it might be wise to be proactive.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.
- Matt M
-
Thanks for the response.
Do you think we need to stay consistent - for example if we decide to use this version - http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx as the preferred version - should we use this as the preferred version for all states -- even if this version is not the ranking version for a particular state?
Thanks again,
- MM
-
Does it matter which version is getting ranked the best in the eyes of Google in terms of which URL's we chose to 301?
If I was doing this I would redirect the pages that rank lowest. The page that ranks highest is there for a reason.
**If we 301 a version that is getting ranked well in Google, does this hurt us in any way? **
I don't know... but your other pages are not ranking as well for a reason.
STICK WITH A WINNER! (However, I might work to improve that page.)
-
Hello, you provided a very good response to the question I posed last year. We never pulled the trigger on this change and now it is back on the radar screen. I was hoping you'd be willing to answer a follow-up question for us. Does it matter which version is getting ranked the best in the eyes of Google in terms of which URL's we chose to 301? I started to look at where we rank for certain "state" related keywords -- i.e. Utah Businesses for Sale, etc.. If we 301 a version that is getting ranked well in Google, does this hurt us in any way? For example, if we decide to 301 redirect Version 3 (http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml) to this page -- http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx - if Version 3 ranks well for keywords like California Business for Sale, etc..
Thanks in advance for any help/guidance on this.
Below is original post.
- Matt M
-
Yes, I would do 301 redirects.
I would do that to consolidate my link power into a single page and eliminate the potential for duplicate content problems.
-
Thanks for the quick response -- quick question - when you say "eliminate" do you mean to 301 redirect these pages? These are all existing pages that are indexed by Google and have various search positions. Thanks again.
- Matt
-
I agree with EGOL. Are the pages being generated? How many search queries will end with the same information?
It looks like your doing URL ReWriting now since the url:
http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale_test.aspx
shows the same information. Start adding canonical to all pages so that the above link will not be seen as duplicated content.
-
I looked at version 1 through 3 for California and agree that these pages are substantially similar.
If this was my site I would eliminate version 2 and version 3 and put all of my linkjuice into version 1.
I would not do this without some analytics... and might try an experiment with a couple of states before doing it across the site. However, my bet is that one version will pull about as much traffic as all three versions combined.
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
-
Pages that 301 redirect to a 404
We are going through a website redesign that involves changing URL's for the pages on our site. Currently all our pages are in the format domain.com/example.html and we are moving to stip off the .html file extension so it would just be domain.com/example We have thousands of pages as the site deals with news so building a redirect for each individual page isn't really feasible. My plan is to have a generic rewrite rule that redirects any page that ends .html to the stripped off version of this. A problem I can see with this is that it will also redirect pages that don't exist. So for example, domain.com/non-existant-page.html would 301 to domain.com/non-existant-page which would then return a 404 status. What would the SEO repercussions be for this? Obviously if a page doesn't exist already then it shouldn't show up in the search engine indexes and shouldn't be a problem but I'm a bit worried about how old pages that currently legitimately 404 will be treated when they start to 301 redirect to a 404 instead. Not sure if there any other potential issues from this that I've missed either? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbb0240 -
Do I put a canonical tag on the page I am pointing to?
Lets say B i a duplicate page of A (main page). I understand I have to put canonical tag under B to point to A. Do I also put canonical tag under the main page A? Is it necessary? I understand that A would then tell Google that it is preferred page of A? Is this a correct understanding?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andypatalak0 -
Php 301 redirect
Hi I am migrating an old wordpress site to a custom PHP site and the URL profiles will be different, so want to retain all link profiles and more importantly if a user visits the old urls via search then they are seamlessly transferred to the new equivalent page For example www.domain.com/about-us is going to need to redirect to www.domain.com/aboutus.php www.domain.com/furniture is going to need to redirect to www.domain.com/furniture-collections.php etc What is the best way of achieving this apart from .htaccess as not 100% confident of doing this. Could it be done via PHP or using meta tags?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ocelot0 -
Rel Canonical Link on the Canonical Page
Is there a problem with placing a rel=canonical link on the canonical page - in addition to the duplicate pages? For example, would that create create an endless loop where the canonical page keeps referring to itself? Two examples that are troubling me are: My home site is www.1099pro.com which is exactly the same as www.1099pro.com/index.asp (all updates to the home page are made by updating the index.asp page). I want www.1099pro.com/index.asp to have the rel=canonical link to point to my standard homepage www.1099pro.com but any update that I make on the index page is automatically incorporated into www.1099pro.com as well. I don't have access to my hosting web server and any updates I make have to be done to the specific landing pages/templates. I am also creating a new website that could possible have pages with duplicate content in the future. I would like to already include the rel=canonical link on the standard canonical page even though there is not duplicate content yet. Any help really would be appreciated. I've read a ton of articles on the subject but none really define whether or not it is ok to have the rel=canonical link on both the canonical page and the duplicate pages. The closest explanation was in a MOZ article that it was ok but the answer was fuzzy. -Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
Does Google make continued attempts to crawl an old page one it has followed a 301 to the new page?
I am curious about this for a couple of reasons. We have all dealt with a site who switched platforms and didn't plan properly and now have 1,000's of crawl errors. Many of the developers I have talked to have stated very clearly that the HTacccess file should not be used for 1,000's of singe redirects. I figured If I only needed them in their temporarily it wouldn't be an issue. I am curious if once Google follows a 301 from an old page to a new page, will they stop crawling the old page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RossFruin0 -
Canonicalization interact with 301 redirects?
This is a interesting one I think. I have recently taken down some product list pages from our website www.towelsrus.co.uk. These have canonicalisation in place to deal with pages where a query string is generated depending on the search criteria. When I put a 301 redirect in place the target page redirects fine, however webmaster tools then errors with 404 on all canonicalised pages. Is this correct behaviour and how do we get over this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Towelsrus0 -
Old page redirection method ?
New web site uploaded .but still there are many old site's pages index in Google .I have created 301 redirect for similar page but what about rest of pages?as eg there is a page called www.xxxx.com/testimonial.php but new site don't have a testimonial pages so what i can delete old page and redirect to home page or what please advice me
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | innofidelity0 -
Canonical / 301 Redundancy
Suppose I have two dynamic URLs that lead to the identical page: www.example.com/product.php?x=1&y=1 and www.example.com/product.php?y=1 The x=1 parameter had some historical meaning, but is now unused. All references to the x=1 parameter have been removed from internal links and sitemaps. I have implemented two solutions: First, the header of www.example.com/product.php?x=1&y=1 includes: Second, the .htaccess file includes the following: Redirect permanent /product.php?x=1&y=1 http://www.example.com/product.php?y=1 Questions: 1. I assume that since canonical is still relatively new, it's best to play it safe and implement both solutions. Is this correct? 2. When I point my browser to www.example.com/product.php?x=1&y=1, it does NOT redirect to www.example.com/product.php?y=1. The address bar continues to show the non-canonical URL. Is this because the canonical tag somehow takes precedence over the 301 redirect? 3. How long will Google Webmaster Tools continue to show these as duplicates, even though I've implemeted BOTH canonical and 301? It's been a few weeks and I thought it would have rolled off by now. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ahirai0