Canonical category pages
-
A couple of years ago I used to receive a lot of traffic via my category pages but now I don't receive as much, in the past year I've modified the category pages to canonical.
I have 15 genres for the category pages, other than the most recent sorting there is no sorting available for the users on the cat pages, a recent image link added can over time drop off to page 2 of the category page, for example
mysite.com/cat-page1.html = 100 image links per page with numbered page navigation, number of cat pages 1-23. New image link can drop off to page 2.
mysite.com/dog-page1.html = 100 image links per page with numbered page navigation, number of cat pages 1-53. New image link can drop off to page 2.
mysite.com/turtle-page1.html = 100 image links per page with numbered page navigation, number of cat pages 1-2. New image link can drop off to page 2.
Now on the first page (eg mysite.com/cat-page1.html) I've set this up to rel= canonical = mysite.com/cat-page1.html
One thing that I have noticed is the unique popup short description tooltips that I have on the image links only appears in google for the first pages of each category page, it seems to ignore the other pages. In view of this am I right in applying canonical ref or just treating it as normal pages.?
thanks
-
I'm going to have to hold off on this google have done an update today which is why we've now dropped from p4 to p14. I've posted a message here
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=76830633df82fd8e&hl=en&start=1360
-
No Problem - Keep us posted!
-
thanks Damien
I'm going to give this a go once my website re-appears in the search engine. After 1.5 years at number four it's decided to disappear today. I think google anticipated what I was intending to do and employed their new jedi mind tricks to de-rank me. I'll see what tommorow brings.
have a good one.
-
This is because you've canonicalised all pages that come from that page.
E.G.
/cat-page1.html has rel=canonical /cat-page1.html
/cat-page2.html has rel=canonical /cat-page1.html
/cat-page3.html has rel=canonical /cat-page1.html
This is telling Google to look at your pages but if possible index ONLY the cat-page1 as you've recommended it in your canonical tag. If you want the other pages to rank you're going to have to remove the canonical tag.
You could also change the canonical tag to:
/cat-page1.html has rel=canonical /cat-page1.html
/cat-page2.html has rel=canonical /cat-page2.html
/cat-page3.html has rel=canonical /cat-page3.html
This will enable you to add any variable you wish on the end (if you need to) without duplicating the content on a different URL in Google's eyes.
For a test try just changing the canonical tag on the 2nd category page and see what happens.
Hope this helps
DD
-
Hi
All 100 image links on each category page are unique that each point to their respective unique pages. The only thing, is that as new image links get added to the top it can push older content onto page 2,3,4 etc. So I would say each category page is unique.
This isn't what I wanted, I've left it for so long (over a year). It's ever since google introduced that parameter thing, I used to have parameters in the urls but I've fixed that along time ago to .html pages.
Yes the pages on category page 2,3,4 etc used to rank before, but now the 2nd and subsequent pages aren't in the index. In fact if you google the 2nd, third or 4th category pages it brings up the first category page.
thanks
-
Hey,
So you've set it up so that only your first category page will be indexed as it basically saying all the other pages (pg 2, 3 etc) are the same/maybe slightly different.
Is this what you wanted? Also, did those pg 2 and so on rank before you implemented the canonical tag?
DD
-
Hi
on each subsequent category page it refers to the first category page
eg
/cat-page1.html has rel=canonical /cat-page1.html
/cat-page2.html has rel=canonical /cat-page1.html
/cat-page3.html has rel=canonical /cat-page1.html
etc
thanks
-
Hmm... let me clarify this you say:
Now on the first page (eg mysite.com/cat-page1.html) I've set this up to rel= canonical = mysite.com/cat-page1.html
what about the each subsequent page (... | 2 | 3 | 4... ) what is their canonical value?
-
Hi
So should I revert to the non canonical page structure and leave it natural?
I also forgot to mention that on the homepage I have a box of recent image links that will also appear on the each of category pages. I don't know if google sees these as duplicate links.
thanks
-
I have noticed exactly the same behavior by Google. They're trying to promote the end page, not the category - even when this is not useful (I think they have a bit of work to do still). If this was my site through I would not tamper with the natural structure of the site but feature key products and pages from pages higher up in the site's hierarchy.
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
-
Paginated Pages Page Depth
Hi Everyone, I was wondering how Google counts the page depth on paginated pages. DeepCrawl is showing our primary pages as being 6+ levels deep, but without the blog or with an infinite scroll on the /blog/ page, I believe it would be only 2 or 3 levels deep. Using Moz's blog as an example, is https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog?page=2 treated to be on the same level in terms of page depth as https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog? If so is it the https://site.comcom/blog" /> and https://site.com/blog?page=3" /> code that helps Google recognize this? Or does Google treat the page depth the same way that DeepCrawl is showing it with the blog posts on page 2 being +1 in page depth compared to the ones on page 1, for example? Thanks, Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyRSB0 -
Canonicals for Splitting up large pagination pages
Hi there, Our dev team are looking at speeding up load times and making pages easier to browse by splitting up our pagination pages to 10 items per page rather than 1000s (exact number to be determined) - sounds like a great idea, but we're little concerned about the canonicals on this one. at the moment we rel canonical (self) and prev and next. so b is rel b, prev a and next c - for each letter continued. Now the url structure will be a1, a(n+), b1, b(n+), c1, c(n+). Should we keep the canonicals to loop through the whole new structure or should we loop each letter within itself? Either b1 rel b1, prev a(n+), next b2 - even though they're not strictly continuing the sequence. Or a1 rel a1, next a2. a2 rel a2, prev a1, next a3 | b1 rel b1, next b2, b2 rel b2, prev b1, next b3 etc. Would love to hear your points of view, hope that all made sense 🙂 I'm leaning towards the first one even though it's not continuing the letter sequence, but because it's looping the alphabetically which is currently working for us already. This is an example of the page we're hoping to split up: https://www.world-airport-codes.com/alphabetical/airport-name/b.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fubra0 -
Internal search pages (and faceted navigation) solutions for 2018! Canonical or meta robots "noindex,follow"?
There seems to conflicting information on how best to handle internal search results pages. To recap - they are problematic because these pages generally result in lots of query parameters being appended to the URL string for every kind of search - whilst the title, meta-description and general framework of the page remain the same - which is flagged in Moz Pro Site Crawl - as duplicate, meta descriptions/h1s etc. The general advice these days is NOT to disallow these pages in robots.txt anymore - because there is still value in their being crawled for all the links that appear on the page. But in order to handle the duplicate issues - the advice varies into two camps on what to do: 1. Add meta robots tag - with "noindex,follow" to the page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII
This means the page will not be indexed with all it's myriad queries and parameters. And so takes care of any duplicate meta /markup issues - but any other links from the page can still be crawled and indexed = better crawling, indexing of the site, however you lose any value the page itself might bring.
This is the advice Yoast recommends in 2017 : https://yoast.com/blocking-your-sites-search-results/ - who are adamant that Google just doesn't like or want to serve this kind of page anyway... 2. Just add a canonical link tag - this will ensure that the search results page is still indexed as well.
All the different query string URLs, and the array of results they serve - are 'canonicalised' as the same.
However - this seems a bit duplicitous as the results in the page body could all be very different. Also - all the paginated results pages - would be 'canonicalised' to the main search page - which we know Google states is not correct implementation of canonical tag
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html this picks up on this older discussion here from 2012
https://mza.seotoolninja.com/community/q/internal-search-rel-canonical-vs-noindex-vs-robots-txt
Where the advice was leaning towards using canonicals because the user was seeing a percentage of inbound into these search result pages - but i wonder if it will still be the case ? As the older discussion is now 6 years old - just wondering if there is any new approach or how others have chosen to handle internal search I think a lot of the same issues occur with faceted navigation as discussed here in 2017
https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog/large-site-seo-basics-faceted-navigation1 -
Home page vs inner page?
do you believe that the advantage of targeting a search term on the home page is now worse off than before? as I understand it ctr is a big factor now And as far as i can see if two pages are equal on page etc the better ctr will win out, the issue with the home page is the serp stars cannot be used hence the ctr on a product page will be higher? I feel if you where able to get a home page up quicker (1 year instead of two) you still lost out in the end due to the product page winning on ctr? do you think this is correct?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Duplicate pages and Canonicals
Hi all, Our website has more than 30 pages which are duplicates. So canonicals have been deployed to show up only 10 of these pages. Do more of these pages impact rankings? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Splitting down pages
Hello everyone, I have a page on my directory for example:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SamBayPublishing
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus The title on this page is small yet a bit unspecific:
Breathing Apparatus Companies, Suppliers and Manufacturers On webmaster tools these terms hold different values for each category so "topic name companies" sometimes has a lot more searches than "topic name suppliers". I was thinking if I could split the page into the following into three separate pages would that be better: https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus (main - Title: Breathing Apparatus)
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus/companies (Title: Breathing Apparatus Companies)
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus/manufacturers (Title: Breathing Apparatus Manufacturers)
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus/suppliers (Title: Breathing Apparatus Suppliers) Two Questions: Would this be more beneficial from an SEO perspective? Would google penalise me for doing this, if so is there a way to do it properly. PS. The list of companies may be the same but the page content ever so slightly different. I know this would not effect my users much because the terms I am using all mean pretty much the same thing. The companies do all three.0 -
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 -
Canonical and optimization
Hi, I was thinking: If I had 4 pages, each of them optimized for an especific keyword, but set a canonical url to another page, would this another page rank for the 5 specific keywords? Ex: Page 1- Shoes
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PedroVillalobos
Page 2- Snickers
Page 3- Socks
Page 4- Feet
All set the canonical url to Page 5 Page 5 will rank for all this four keywords?0