Rel=canonical vs noindex/follow - tabs with individual URLs
-
Hi everyone
I've got a situation that I haven't seen in quite this way before. I would like some advice on whether I should be rel=canonicalzing of noindexing/following a range of pages on a clients website.
I've just started working on a website that creates individual URLs for tabs within each page which has resulted in several URLs being created for each listing:
Example URLs:
- hotel-downtown-calgary
- hotel-downtown-calgary/gallery?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/map?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/facilities?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab
- hotel-downtown-calgary/in-the-area?tab
Google has indexed over 1500 pages with the "?tab" parameter (there are 4380 page indexed for the site in total), and also seems to be indexing some of these pages without the "?tab" parameter i.e. ("hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews" instead of "hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab") so the amount of potential duplication could be more. These tabbed pages are getting minimal traffic from organic search, so I've got no issues with taking them out of the index - the question is how.
There are the issues I see:
- Each tab has the same title as the other tabs for each location, so lots of title duplication.
- Each individual tab doesn't have much content (although the content each tab has is unique).
I would usually expect the tabs to be distinguished by the parameters only, not have unique URLs - if that was the case we wouldn't have a duplication issue.
So the question is: rel=canonical or noindex/follow? I can see benefits of both.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
-
Well, you are on the right path with thinking on how to reduce the amount of unneeded pages.
Here is how I would approach it.
-
Check the query volume levels on those specific queries "Map to XXX"
-
Check the search volume on those pages.
See if you can detect a pattern that there is search volume to justify those searches, do they result in significant traffic to those pages. Then try and determine, what is the content on all those separate pages and is it any good? Are they making extra pages to make extra pages? Sure, in theory you could do a page per query, but I would bet if they have a ton of hotel, all the info on those pages is a bunch of boilerplate crap copied from somewhere else. Even if the search volume was there, do they have a good enough page with good content to rank for it?
Now that we have hummingbird type algos in Google, it reduces the need to get so specific for matching on queries on a page by page basis. Build a single, awesome, page that is really helpful to users and has original content, that is how you win for the big queries and then fill in for the rest. You can then use the title, description and H1, H2 headings to show the important information.
Remember that the rel=canonical will help Google understand what your main page is and what your secondary/duplicate pages are in this specific case, but I am not sure that Google would see it as the consolidated awesome single page.
Rel=canonical is more for showing how the parts are just parts of a whole page that is already there, it is more to help clean up duplicate content
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
As I read your post originally, this seemed to be more of the issue. This was why I was encouraging you to take the content in the tab (that did not seem substantial) and put it on the main page and use the canonical or if the content was junk then it did not matter as much.
Hope that makes sense.
-
-
Hello CleverPHD!
Thank you very much for your response - that really clears a few things up. Most info around rel=canonical revolves around duplicate content so I just wanted to make sure!
Regarding your separate question, your assumption is correct, each hotel on the site is set up this way (and there are hundreds of them) which is why I am concerned.
I've just come into this project but I assume that the initial thinking was going to be that they wanted to rank for a range of search terms around the hotel i.e. "Xxx Hotel reviews", "map to Xxx Hotel" etc and thought that dedicated pages for each term would help them.
What I am hoping is that by rel=canonicaling these pages to the main Hotel URL we will in effect be creating the "really awesome" page you refer to, while avoiding any potential penalties!
Once again, thanks for your in depth response - it's very much appreciated!
-
The rel=canonical is what you need to do right now to help fix this. Google has already indexed all of those tabbed pages and you need to make sure that Google knows that they are subsections of the main page and how it all fits together. The canonical is treated like a 301 redirect. Doing that should take care of the extra pages indexed. If you can 301 those tabbed pages that would be a good option as well, not a good option if you do not want to lose the content on those tabbed pages though.
Right now, I would not use no-follow on links or no-index meta tags on the tabbed pages. If you use no-follow, you are telling Google to not follow that tab link and so it is not able to crawl over the the tabbed page and see the canonical link. Second, if you have a noindex meta on that tabbed page, it tells Google to take the page out of the index and would probably conflict with the canonical link as well.
The only way you would want to use no-follow or noindex meta tags or blocking in robots.txt is if 1) the content is not worth indexing and/or ranking and or 2) it is not in the index already and you want to keep Google out of this stuff.
Ultimately, I would try and get the stuff on the tabbed sections onto the main page and then use the noindex meta tag on the tabbed pages so that you can get rid of the tabbed pages all together and not work about losing the content that is in the tabbed section. If you can do that, it would be a better approach than the canonical option, but it looks like you may not have that option at this time. All those extra tab pages are just wasting Google's time crawling pages that do not matter (most likely).
If you did not care about the content on the tabbed pages, I would just 410 them right now and get rid of the links to the tabs on the main pages.
Hope the above makes sense, tried to answer the "it depends" scenarios.
Feel free to ignore this next part, but I have a separate question if you drop the whole tab pages issue and look at this at a higher level. Looking at this subsection of URLs from above
- hotel-downtown-calgary
- hotel-downtown-calgary/gallery
- hotel-downtown-calgary/map
- hotel-downtown-calgary/facilities
- hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews
- hotel-downtown-calgary/in-the-area
Would not all the above pages really need to be about a single hotel or a category page on all the hotels in downtown calgary? Unless you have enough search query volume to support a separate page for each of them, seems like if you put the content on all the pages listed above into a single page, you would have a really awesome page about either a specific downtown calgary hotel or all the hotels in downtown calgary.
-
Thanks for that Dana - appreciated.
At the moment it is currently set to Let Googlebot decide and I need admin access to look under the hood which I don't have, so I'll have a look when I gain administrator access. I can see one potential issue through - some of their landing pages don't exist without the "?tab" parameter which I think might make this a non starter unfortunately.
Given the possibility that this method doesn't work, does anyone else have any thoughts on rel=canonical vs noindex in this situation?
-
Hi Damon,
I believe there may be a third option. In Google Search Console, there is the option to tell Googlebot not to crawl and index URLs containing certain parameters. In this case, it seems like it would be easiest to indicated to Googlebot that anything with the ?tab parameter should be excluded from crawling and indexing.
You can find this in Google Search Console by navigating to "Crawl" and then "URL Parameters," then click "Configure URL Parameters" and Google will show you a list of potential candidates for exclusion.
Hope that's helpful...it's my understanding that Yahoo/Bing have something similar but I've never used those.
Cheers,
Dana
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
-
Virtual URL Google not indexing?
Dear all, We have two URLs: The main URL which is crawled both by GSC and where Moz assigns our keywords is: https://andipaeditions.com/banksy/ The second one is called a virtual url by our developpers: https://andipaeditions.com/banksy/signedandunsignedprintsforsale/ This is currently not indexed by Google. We have been linking to the second URL and I am unable to see if this is passing juice/anything on to the main one /banksy/ Is it a canonical? The /banksy/ is the one that is being picked up in serps/by Moz and worry that the two similar URLs are splitting the signal. Should I redirect from the second to the first? Thank you
On-Page Optimization | | TAT1000 -
Embedded twitter post is good for https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine seo
We have short video posts on twitter. Embedded twitter post is good for https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine SEO?
On-Page Optimization | | ahislop5740 -
Link flow for multiple links to same URL
Hi there,
On-Page Optimization | | doctecs
my question is as follows: How does Google handle link flow if two links in a given page point to the same URL? (do they flow link individually or not?) This seems to be a newbie question, but actually it seems that there is little evidence and even also little consensus in the SEO community about this detail. Answers should include source Information about the current state of art at Google is preferable The question is not about anchor text, general best practises for linking, "PageRank is dead" etc. We do know that the "historical" PageRank was implemented (a long time ago) without special handling for multiple links, as e.g. last stated by Matt Cutts in this video: http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 On the other hand, many people from the SEO community say that only the first link counts. But so far I could not find any data to back this up, which is quite surprising.0 -
Do follow links
Is it good(according to SEO) to give dofollow rel to external links of highly trusted websites from our content?
On-Page Optimization | | Obbserv0 -
Noindex, nofollow tags
Hi, I have changed my tags to noindex,nofollow with Yoast. But still, seomoz software showing me warnings and errors for those pages. Also did the same for archive pages example.com/page-2/ and facing the same problems. I need to clear as much errors as I can in the software so I can see the real remaining errors in the website. Help will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | Xasir0 -
Canonical to the page itself?
Hello, I'd like to know what happens when you use canonical to the same page itself, like: Page "example.com" rel canonical="example.com" Does that impact in something? Bad or good? See ya!
On-Page Optimization | | seomasterbrasil1 -
Which Canonical URL Tag tag should we remove?
Hi guys, We are in the process of optimizing the pages of our new site. We have used the 'on page' report card feature in the Seomoz Pro Campaign analyser. On several pages we got the following result No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Number of Canonical tags <dl> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> </dl> I have looked into the source code of one of the pages http://www.sabaileela.co.uk/acupuncture-london and can see that there are two "canonical" tags. Does anyone have any advise on which one I should ask the developer to remove? I am not sure how to determine the relative importance of either link.
On-Page Optimization | | brian.james0 -
Subdomains vs. Subfolders Inheriting Authority/Ranking Value
Our website is a continuing education website that is linked to a large university, and our URL is a subdomain of that larger university domain. We offer degrees as well, but because of the modifications we'd like to make to the degree webpages, our content management system won't let them be a part of our website. Now we're trying to figure out if we should create a separate subdomain for all degrees, and put the individual degrees in separate folders (so, all degrees' URLs woudl be degrees.us.university.edu/degree-name/), or if we should give each its own URL, which would be completely separate from ours (degree urls would be degree-name.university.edu). So our question is, how well do subdomains carry the value of the domain? Is it better to have twenty websites that are all separate subdomains of a strong domain, or one subdomain in a subdomain that houses all twenty websites in folders? And, as a side note, will housing the degrees in degrees.us.university.edu pass value to us (us.university.edu)? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | UWPCE0