Canonical or No-index
-
Just a quick question really.
Say I have a Promotions page where I list all current promotions for a product, and update it regularly to reflect the latest offer codes etc.
On top of that I have Offer announcement posts for specific promotions for that product, highlighting very briefly the promotion, but also linking back to the main product promotion page which has a the promotion duplicated. So main page is 1000+ words with half a dozen promotions, the small post might be 200 words, and quickly become irrelevant as it is a limited time news article.
Now, I don't want the promotion page indexed (unless it has a larger news story attached to the promotion, but for this purpose presume it is doesn't). Initially the core essence of the post will be duplicated in the main Promotion page, but later as the offer expires it wouldn't be. Therefore would you Rel Canonical or just simply No-index?
-
But it's the date that makes them different! As in if I was specifically looking for info on 2013 I wouldn't WANT the 2014 page to be served and vice versa.
I would leave them both indexed - assuming the data is entirely different in each.
-
OK, but using Canonical for say:
Black Friday sales Roundup 2013 to Black Friday Sales Roundup 2014
is ok? Or should I leave both indexed. Both are quality pages, but targeting virtually the same keywords., apart from a date.
-
That is interesting thanks. I do actually have links to further information in exactly the way you say.
Including some basic information about the product could work... I will give it some thought, as I will need to make sure it is of sufficient quality.
Well, for definite it looks like I am using "canonical" incorrectly
Work to do...
-
^ I agree with Martijn here. Great point.
-
Hi there
If it were me - leave the promotion indexed because you want that promotion to be promoted and people are always looking for deals. Also, take a look at the Customer Journey from Google to see where opportunities lie in getting that promotion page and circulating - you could be missing some big opportunities.
I would also (from the promotions page) have a "Learn more about this product" sort of button so that the users that do land on that page can get more information - especially if you have more content about the product. Some customers will land there not ready to buy, but will be looking for information - get the the information they need and quickly.
You could bulletpoint the information on these smaller pages so people can quickly read and assess benefits. But in my opinion, I am not seeing a reason to canonicalize these or noindex them. Unless I am misunderstanding - if that's the case, please let me know!
Hope this helps a bit - good luck!
-
I'd say noindex as it's pretty hard to point the canonical to 1 page where there would be multiple promotions.
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
-
Mass Removal Request from Google Index
Hi, I am trying to cleanse a news website. When this website was first made, the people that set it up copied all kinds of articles they had as a newspaper, including tests, internal communication, and drafts. This site has lots of junk, but this kind of junk was on the initial backup, aka before 1st-June-2012. So, removing all mixed content prior to that date, we can have pure articles starting June 1st, 2012! Therefore My dynamic sitemap now contains only articles with release date between 1st-June-2012 and now Any article that has release date prior to 1st-June-2012 returns a custom 404 page with "noindex" metatag, instead of the actual content of the article. The question is how I can remove from the google index all this junk as fast as possible that is not on the site anymore, but still appears in google results? I know that for individual URLs I need to request removal from this link
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ioannisa
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals The problem is doing this in bulk, as there are tens of thousands of URLs I want to remove. Should I put the articles back to the sitemap so the search engines crawl the sitemap and see all the 404? I believe this is very wrong. As far as I know this will cause problems because search engines will try to access non existent content that is declared as existent by the sitemap, and return errors on the webmasters tools. Should I submit a DELETED ITEMS SITEMAP using the <expires>tag? I think this is for custom search engines only, and not for the generic google search engine.
https://developers.google.com/custom-search/docs/indexing#on-demand-indexing</expires> The site unfortunatelly doesn't use any kind of "folder" hierarchy in its URLs, but instead the ugly GET params, and a kind of folder based pattern is impossible since all articles (removed junk and actual articles) are of the form:
http://www.example.com/docid=123456 So, how can I bulk remove from the google index all the junk... relatively fast?0 -
Only the mobile version of the site is being indexed
We've got an interesting situation going on at the moment where a recently on-boarded clients site is being indexed and displayed, but it's on the mobile version of the site that is showing in serps. A quick rundown of the situation. Retail shopping center with approximately 200 URLS Mobile version of the site is www.mydomain.com/m/ XML sitemap submitted to Google with 202 URLs, 3 URLS indexed Doing site:www.mydomain.com in a Google search brings up the home page (desktop version) and then everything else is /m/ versions. There is no rel="canonical" on mobile site pages to their desktop counterpart (working on fixing that) We have limited CMS access, but developers are open to working with us on whatever is needed. Within desktop site source code, there are no "noindex, nofollow, etc" issues on the pages. No manual actions, link issues, etc Has anyone ever encoutnered this before? Any input or thoughts are appreciated. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GregWalt0 -
Rel=Canonical to Longer Page?
We've got a series of articles on the same topic and we consolidated the content and pasted it altogether on a single page. We linked from each individual article to the consolidated page. We put a noindex on the consolidated page. The problem: Inbound links to individual articles in the series will only count toward the authority of those individual pages, and inbound links to the full article will be worthless. I am considering removing the noindex from the consolidated article and putting rel=canonicals on each individual post pointing to the consolidated article. That should consolidate the PageRank. But I am concerned about pointing****a rel=canonical to an article that is not an exact duplicate (although it does contain the full text of the original--it's just that it contains quite a bit of additional text). An alternative would be not to use rel=canonicals, nor to place a noindex on the consolidated article. But then my concern would be duplicate content and unconsolidated PageRank. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheEspresseo0 -
To remove from index or not and stop words
Each product is an item of jewellery based on a letter of the alphabet. At present all 26 are indexed but as you guess they all share the same description, title and URL (apart from change in letter). What I was going to do was set all but one to no-index, recreate new descriptions and revert back to index. But then that got me thinking - through stop words will the titles be seen as duplicates: letter bracelet letter a bracelet letter i bracelet
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MickEdwards0 -
Cross Domain Rel Canonical for Affiliates?
Hi We use the Cross Domain Rel Canonical for duplicate content between our own websites, but what about affiliates sites who want our XML feed, (descriptions of our products). We don´t mind being credited but would this present a danger for us? Who is controlling the use of that cross domain rel canonical, us in our feed or them? Is there another way around it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | xoffie0 -
Wrong Page Indexing in SERPS - Suggestions?
Hey Moz'ers! I have a quick question. Our company (Savvy Panda) is working on ranking for the keyword: "Milwaukee SEO". On our website, we have a page for "Milwaukee SEO" in our services section that's optimized for the keyword and we've been doing link building to this. However, when you search for "Milwaukee SEO" a different page is being displayed in the SERP's. The page that's showing up in the SERP's is a category view of our blog of articles with the tag "Milwaukee SEO". **Is there a way to alert google that the page showing up in the SERP's is not the most relevant and request a new URL to be indexed for that spot? ** I saw a webinar awhile back that showed something like that using google webmaster sitelinks denote tool. I would hate to denote that URL and then loose any kind of indexing for the keyword.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SavvyPanda
Ideas, suggestions?0 -
To "Rel canon" or not to "Rel canon" that is the question
Looking for some input on a SEO situation that I'm struggling with. I guess you could say it's a usability vs Google situation. The situation is as follows: On a specific shop (lets say it's selling t-shirts). The products are sorted as follows each t-shit have a master and x number of variants (a color). we have a product listing in this listing all the different colors (variants) are shown. When you click one of the t-shirts (eg: blue) you get redirected to the product master, where some code on the page tells the master that it should change the color selectors to the blue color. This information the page gets from a query string in the URL. Now I could let Google index each URL for each color, and sort it out that way. except for the fact that the text doesn't change at all. Only thing that changes is the product image and that is changed with ajax in such a way that Google, most likely, won't notice that fact. ergo producing "duplicate content" problems. Ok! So I could sort this problem with a "rel canon" but then we are in a situation where the only thing that tells Google that we are talking about a blue t-shirt is the link to the master from the product listing. We end up in a situation where the master is the only one getting indexed, not a problem except for when people come from google directly to the product, I have no way of telling what color the costumer is looking for and hence won't know what image to serve her. Now I could tell my client that they have to write a unique text for each varient but with 100 of thousands of variant combinations this is not realistic ir a real good solution. I kinda need a new idea, any input idea or brain wave would be very welcome. 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ReneReinholdt0 -
IP address being indexed by Google in addition to canonical domain.
Our site's IP address is being indexed in addition to the canonical www.example.com domain. As soon as it was flagged a 301 was implemented in the .htaccess file to redirect the IP address to the canonical. Does this usually occur? Is it detrimental to SEO? In my time in SEO I've never heard of this being an issue, or being part of a list of things to be checked. It sounds more like a server that wasn't configured correctly when hosting was set up? It didn't seem to be affecting the site at all, but is it more common and I've just never heard of it? 😛 Should it be something I'm usually looking for in future? Responses are greatly appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mikeimrie0