Canonical tag - but Title and Description are slightly different
-
I am building a new SEO site with a "Silo" / Themed architecture. I have a travel website selling hotel reservations. I list a hotel page under a city page - example, www.abc.com/Dallas/Hilton.html Then I use that same property under a segment within the city - example www.abc.com/Dallas/Downtown/Hilton.html, so there are two URLs with the same content
Both pages are identical, except I want to customize the Title and Description. I want to customize the title and description to build a consistent theme - for example the /Downtown/Hilton page will have the words "Near Downtown" in the Title and Description, while the primary city Hilton page will not. So I have two questions about this.
-
First, is it okay to use a canonical tag if the Title and Description are slightly different? Everything else is identical.
-
If so, will Google crawl and comprehend the unique Title and Description on the "Downtown" silo?
I want Google to see that I have several "supporting" pages to my main landing page(s). I want to present to Google 5 supporting pages in each silo that each has a supporting keyword theme. But I'm not sure if Google will consider content of pages that point to a different page using the canonical tag.
Please see this supporting example: http://d.pr/i/aQPv
Thanks for your insights.
Rob
-
-
Kurt,
Just wanted to let you know, I decided to go with option 1 above. This is the long route, but the purest form of SEO. It will cost me more money up front, and will take time to develop, but I think its our best bet for the long run.
Thanks again for your help. I understand the canonical tag better now.
Rob
-
Kurt,
Thanks again for your insights. I appreciate you taking the time to comprehend my question so thoroughly. I am still learning this, and its good to get your input. I am leaning toward doing this without a canonical tag. I still feel that by adding the canonical tag it should send a clear signal to Google that I'm not trying to manipulate the results, as I'm effectively removing those pages from the index. But if they "think" (and thats all that matters) I'm trying something wrong, then its probably not worth it.
I'll have to think about what my best course of action is, as this will have a big impact on how I proceed.
Thanks again for your input. I do appreciate it.
Best,
Rob
-
The canonical tag is telling Google to treat that canonical URL as the URL you want them to consider for the content. It can be used to give credit when you use someone else's content, point Google to the page you want them to list when you have duplicates of your own content, or assist in moving pages from one URL to another (adding a 301 redirect later) Honestly, I've never heard of someone trying to do what you are suggesting. I'm not sure exactly how Google would treat that.
As to whether Google would consider what you're doing as spam, it's a matter of degrees. If you're doing it a lot, then it's possible they might apply a manual action. If it's not enough to warrant an action, they may just disregard all but one of the duplicate versions of each page. Maybe nothing will happen and Google won't notice. What I can tell you is that they would consider it manipulation if they notice it.
The simple fact is this. You could just have one version of the supporting pages and link to that one version from each of the relevant main pages. There are only two reasons you'd want different versions of the supporting pages. Either you want to hone the content to get the best conversion rate from users, in which case each page wouldn't actually be duplicate, or you want to manipulate the search rankings by creating a bunch of duplicates of the exact same page to target different keywords. Clearly, since you don't want to work on the content of each version, you are solely doing this to manipulate the search rankings when the same user experience could be achieved with one copy of the page.
Please also understand that this isn't personal. I don't have a problem with what you're doing. Just be aware that it comes with risks. If Google discovers it, they may treat a bunch of your pages as duplicates and may even penalize your site and you be back in the forums in a few months asking how to deal with the fact that your rankings just disappeared overnight. You just have to decide if your willing to take that risk.
-
One more thought.
I could see Google seeing my strategy as manipulation - trying to rank the same piece of content for multiple keywords if I didn't have a canonical tag on the page.
But if I reference one page and designate it as canonical I would think that removes the spam aspect. Do you agree with this?
What I'm not sure about though is how does Google read a page with a canonical tag on it. Will they ignore the unique title and description - and I lose the "supporting" pages on my other silos.
I appreciate your inputs on this - and i'm not trying to argue, just hoping (maybe in vain) I can find an alternative to the 2 options you present above.
Best,
Rob
-
Thanks for your response Kurt.
This is slowly coming to me. But if I have five duplicate versions of a hotel property page, and reference one of them as canonical, I would be fine if Google disregarded the other 4 as I only need to rank for one of those pages.
What I do want to accomplish though, is get a ranking boost for the main page in the silo(s). I'm hoping that the supporting pages (which are duplicates and have a canonical tag on them) will provide some lift to the top level page in the silo.
Example: keyword "hotels in downtown Dallas" www.abc.com/hotels-in-dallas/downtown/ to get a boost from supporting pages which also have the term "near downtown Dallas" in their title / description.
Are you saying that Google will not even recognize the unique title / description of the property pages below - because they have a canonical tag referencing a different page?
If that is the case, then you are right, I am left with the two options you give above. I don't really like either scenario as option 1 is a lot more work and money, and option 2 really dilutes my theme. Are you sure that Google considers what I want to do as spam - even though its completely legit? Just want to double check.
Best,
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
I understand what you're trying to do and why; however, you need to understand that it's something the search engines (Google in particular) don't like. Creating a bunch of duplicate pages to try to target different, similar keywords is considered manipulation, even if each of those keywords are relevant. The search engines want unique content for different pages.
In regards to the canonical tag, the pages don't have to be completely exact to use the canonical tag. After all, it's recommended that if one site uses content from another, they use the canonical tag to give the original site credit. But there will be lots of different content on the two pages since they'll have unique headers, navigation menus, footers, and possibly title and description tags. However, using canonical tags the way you are suggesting will defeat your own purpose. If you have 5 different duplicate versions of the page and setup canonical tags on each to point to one of them, Google is only going to consider that one page. The others will most likely be disregarded. Thus, you still won't get the rankings boost for the optimized title and description tags on the other duplicate versions.
It seems to me you have two options that don't run afowl of Google.
- Create different pages for each silo and have unique content for each of those pages. Not only does this give the search engines what they want, but you have more opportunity to optimize the content for the keywords you are targeting. Of course it will take a lot more work.
- Have only one version of each page, but optimize it for each of the targeted keywords. This is probably less effective since the optimization will get diluted by targeting so many keywords in the content, but it will be a lot less work.
Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Thanks Federico,
I think I understand what your recommending. I just have one more thing to clarify.
I plan to build landing pages for a variety of city hotel related terms such as:
"hotels in Dallas"
"hotels in downtown Dallas"
"hotels with suites in Dallas"
"three star hotels in Dallas"
"hotels with pools in Dallas"Its quite possible that one hotel fits in all of those silos. So my thought was I would write content for a property one time, and re-use that page in multiple silos. I am not trying to mislead search engines, just optimizing for a variety of "facts" about that property.
I know the canonical tag can be used across domains, so I'm assuming its fine to use it here, even though there is a slight variation in the Title and Description. What I don't know is whether or not Google will read a page when it encounters a canonical tag, or does it simply stop at that point, and reference the root page. I'm hoping that I can build a consistently themed silo - all pages with a common keyword. Given that Google allows users to navigate to the URL of pages that have a canonical tag on them, I'm hoping that Google sees that content, and recognizes me as a subject matter expert.
If I can't use the canonical tag, then I would be forced to write different content multiple times for the same property page...
Thanks for your advice on this.
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
I personally wouldn't go the way you are heading... that could be seen by Google as a technique to manipulate search engine results (which you stated it is).
But to respond to your question, why don't you use the "definitive" version of the page as the canonical? If the one including "near downtown" is the most accurate (and complete one as I guess the hotel IS near downtown) then you should go with that and noindex the alternatives... although I know that's not your intention, that is the way it should be done.
Hope that helps!
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
-
New websites issues- Duplicate urls and many title tags. Is it fine for SEO?
Hey everyone, I have found few code issues with our new website and wanted to see how bad those problems are and if I have missed anything. If someone can take a look at this and help me it would mean the world. Thank you. all! We hired an agency to design a new site for us and it's almost ready, but the other day I found some problems that made me wonder if this new site might not be as good as I thought and I wanted to ask you to take a look at the code and possibly help me understand if from SEO prospective it is sound. But I really want someone who understands SEO and web design to look at our code and point out what might be wrong there. Here is a link to the actual site which is on a new server: http://209.50.54.42/ What I found few days ago that made me wonder something might not be right. Problem 1. Each page has 3 title tags, I guess whatever template they are using it automatically creates 3 title tags. When you do " View Page Source" For example on this url: http://209.50.54.42/washington-dc-transportation when you view the code, the lines Lines 16,19 and 20 have the title tag which in my opinion is wrong and there should only be one. Could this hurt our SEO? Problem 2. Infinite duplicate urls found All following pages have INFINITE NUMBER OF DUPLICATE URLS. EXAMPLE: http://209.50.54.42/privacy-policy/8, http://209.50.54.42/privacy-policy/1048, http://209.50.54.42/privacy-policy/7, http://209.50.54.42/privacy-policy/1, http://209.50.54.42/privacy-policy you can add any type of number to this url and it will show the same page. I really think this 2nd problem is huge as it will create duplicate content. There should be only 1 url per page, and if I add any number to the end should give a 404 error. I have managed to find these 2 issues but I am not sure what else could be wrong with the code. Would you be able to look into this? And possible tell us what else is incorrect? I really like the design and we worked really hard on this for almost 5 moths but I want to make sure that when we launch the new site it does not tank our rankings and only helps us in a positive way. Thanks in advance, Davit
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Davit19850 -
Should I put rel next and rel prev and canonical on tags pages
Hi I have a tag pages on a news website each tag page is divided to several pages, but Google does't crawled those pages because the links are in javaScript, I want to do the following things: Change the links to html href Add rel=pref rel=next Add a canonical in each page with the url of the main tag page Do you agree with my solution? Thanks Roy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kadut1 -
Best use of Canonical Tag with Mini-Websites
Hello, I was wondering what the best way would be to implement Canonical Tags in kind of a unusual situation. The company I work for creates single property websites for real estate agents. We register a URL such as 123MainSt.com - however through DNS we redirect that to a path. For example: http://www.944milmadadr.com would redirect to: https://www.qwikvid.com/realestate/go/v1/home/?idx=wDg1Gdwt7wnQiR3LMeCx28qPnWTKM0JV If we wanted to rank high in the search engines for our clients: "944 Milmada Dr" - Would it be the best practice to Canonical: http://www.944milmadadr.com ? Thanks in advance for any feedback on this!! Jason
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Qwikvid0 -
Changing Canonical Tags on Indexed Pages that are Ranking Well
Hi Guys, I recently rolled out a domain wide canonical tag change. Previously the website had canonical tags without the www, however the website was setup to redirect to www on page load. I noticed that the site competitors were all using www and as far as I understand www versus non www, it's based on preference. In order to keep things consistent, I changed the canonical tag to include the www. Will the site drop in rankings? Especially if the pages are starting to rank quite well. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | QuickToImpress0 -
Canonical tags for duplicate listings
Hi there, We are restructuring a website. The website originally lists jobs that will have duplicate content. We have tried to ask the client not to use duplicates but apparently their industry is not something they can control. The recommendations I had is to have categories (which will have the idea description for a group of jobs), and the job listing pages. The job listing pages will then have canonical tags pointing to the category page as the primary URL to be indexed. Another opinion came from a third party that this can be seen as if we are tricking Google and would get penalised, **Is that even true? **Why would Google penalise for this if thats their recommendations in the first place? This third party suggested using nofollow on the links to these listings, or even not not index them all together. What are your thoughts? Thanks Issa
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iQi0 -
Investigating Google's treatment of different pages on our site - canonicals, addresses, and more.
Hey all - I hesitate to ask this question, but have spent weeks trying to figure it out to no avail. We are a real estate company and many of our building pages do not show up for a given address. I first thought maybe google did not like us, but we show up well for certain keywords 3rd for Houston office space and dallas office space, etc. We have decent DA and inbound links, but for some reason we do not show up for addresses. An example, 44 Wall St or 44 Wall St office space, we are no where to be found. Our title and description should allow us to easily picked up, but after scrolling through 15 pages (with a ton of non relevant results), we do not show up. This happens quite a bit. I have checked we are being crawled by looking at 44 Wall St TheSquareFoot and checking the cause. We have individual listing pages (with the same titles and descriptions) inside the buildings, but use canonical tags to let google know that these are related and want the building pages to be dominant. I have worked though quite a few tests and can not come up with a reason. If we were just page 7 and never moved it would be one thing, but since we do not show up at all, it almost seems like google is punishing us. My hope is there is one thing that we are doing wrong that is easily fixed. I realize in an ideal world we would have shorter URLs and other nits and nats, but this feels like something that would help us go from page 3 to page 1, not prevent us from ranking at all. Any thoughts or helpful comments would be greatly appreciated. http://www.thesquarefoot.com/buildings/ny/new-york/10005/lower-manhattan/44-wall-st/44-wall-street We do show up one page 1 for this building - http://www.thesquarefoot.com/buildings/ny/new-york/10036/midtown/1501-broadway, but is the exception. I have tried investigating any differences, but am quite baffled.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AtticusBerg10 -
Removing Canonical Links
We implemented rel=canonical as we decided to paginate our pages. We then ran some testing and on the whole pagination did not work out so we removed all on-page pagination. Now, internally when I click for example a link for Widgets I get the /widgets.php but searching through Google I get to /widgets.php?page=all . There are not redirects in place at the moment. The '?page=all' page has been rated 'A' by the SEOmoz tool under On Page Optimization reports and performs much better than the exact same page without the '?page=all' (the score dips to a 'D' grade) so need to tread carefully so we don't lose the link value. Can anyone advise us on the best way forward? Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jannkuzel0 -
Hash as a Replacement for Absolute URL in Canonical Tags?
Any idea why companies like Skechers would be doing this: http://screencast.com/t/ooEkATGN7EX ? I suppose it makes sense, but I've never seen it done before. If this works, why on earth would we be using absolute URLs still?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevewiideman0