Pricing value pages
-
We have the main pricing page here: https://www.eginnovations.com/product/pricing
Then depending on what you click, you'll be taken to the appropriate form on one of these pages:
- https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=audit
- https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=saas
- https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=perpetual
- https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=subscription
How should I handle these? Noindex, follow? Set a canonical? I keep getting notifications that these are duplicate content, but it's just a way to keep the form fills organized. Thanks for your help!
-
Absolutely not a problem
-
Thanks for your help!
-
Ah the bane that is parameter variant URLs. Mostly duplicate, tiny differences - Google doesn't usually like them (there are exceptions, but here it's clear that there's a genuine / flagged problem).
No-index / robots.txt are a bit over-the-top for this kind of stuff in my opinion. Obviously you can't use redirects to consolidate as in this situation that would prevent users from accessing the stated form variants (not cool).
You have two sensible options:
1) Canonical (using canonical tags) the parameter hooked forms to their non-parameter based ("pricing") parent (https://www.eginnovations.com/product/pricing)
2) Canonical the less used form variants to the one which is most often used (e.g: all parameter form variants to https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=perpetual - which is stated to be the 'popular' option) - and let them all sit separately to the parent (which contains no forms, this page: https://www.eginnovations.com/product/pricing).
My preference would be to try option 2 so Google at least has a chance of indexing the pricing URL _and _the most popular form variant. If you **still get duplication notices **then go nuclear and slam option 1 down.
When you put a canonical tag on a page referencing another URL as the canonical version, the active page (the one with the canonical tag on it) becomes non-canonical and is usually de-indexed by default. So no need for crazy robots or no-index Meta shenanigans.
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
-
Why Product pages are throwing Missing field "image" and Missing field "price" in Wordpress Woocommerce
I have a wordpress wocommerce website where I have uploaded 100s of products but it's giving me error in GSC under merchant listing tab. When I tested it show missing field image and missing field price. I have done everything according to https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/product#merchant-listing-experiences and applied fixed i.e. images are 800x800 and price range is also there. What else can be done here?!merchant listing.jpg
Technical SEO | | Ravi_Rana0 -
Should I reverse renaming of a page that lost value?
I have a site with a handful of links that are ranked. One of those links was ranking for "pantsuits for sale". The slug was mysite.com/pantsuits. I decided to rename the slug to mysite.com/pantsuits-for-sale and used the term "pantsuits for sale" twice in the page which it had not been appearing before. I did a 301 redirect old page to new. I then organized 5 pages below Pantsuits-for-sale in a silo. Before they were all at the same level. I ran 301s for those also. I suddenly lost 40 spaces in rank a few days later! Clearly Google did not like these changes. So do you think I can regain my position by reversing the silo and changing back to the old slugs? Other thoughts/ recommendations?
Technical SEO | | dk50 -
Can I canonical the same page?
I have a site where I have 500+ Page listing pages and I would like to rel=canonical them to the master page. Example: http://www.example.com//articles?p=18 OR http://www.example.com/articles?p=65 I plan on adding this to the section from of the page template so it goes to all pages - When I do this, I will also add the canonical to the page I am directing the canonical. Is this a bad thing? Or allowed?
Technical SEO | | JoshKimber0 -
Should We Index These Category Pages?
Currently we have marked category pages like http://www.yournextshoes.com/celebrities/kim-kardashian/ as follow/noindex as they essentially do not include any original content. On the other hand, for someone searching for Kim Kardashian shoes, it's a highly relevant page as we provide links to all the Kim Kardashian shoe sightings that we have covered. Should we index the category pages or leave them unindexed?
Technical SEO | | Jantaro0 -
Why are pages linked with URL parameters showing up as separate pages with duplicate content?
Only one page exists . . . Yet I link to the page with different URL parameters for tracking purposes and for some reason it is showing up as a separate page with duplicate content . . . Help? rpcIZ.png
Technical SEO | | BlueLinkERP0 -
Redirecting over-optimised pages
Hi One of my clients websites was affected by Penguin and due to no 'bad link' messages, and nothing really obvious from the backlink profile, I put it down to over-optimisation on the site. I noticed a lot of spammy pages and duplicate content, and submitted recommendations to have these fixed. They dragged their heels for a while and eventually put in plans for a new site (which was happening anyway), but its taken quite a while and is only just going live in a couple of weeks. My question is, should I redirect the URLs of the previously over-optimised pages? Obviously the new pages are nice and clean and from what I can tell there are no bad links pointing to the URLs, so is this an acceptable practice? Will Google notice this and remove the penalty? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Coolpink0 -
Page not Accesible for crawler in on-page report
Hi All, We started using SEOMoz this week and ran into an issue regarding the crawler access in the on-page report module. The attached screen shot shows that the HTTP status is 200 but SEOMoz still says that the page is not accessible for crawlers. What could this be? Page in question
Technical SEO | | TiasNimbas
http://www.tiasnimbas.edu/Executive_MBA/pgeId=307 Regards, Coen SEOMoz.png0 -
I have 15,000 pages. How do I have the Google bot crawl all the pages?
I have 15,000 pages. How do I have the Google bot crawl all the pages? My site is 7 years old. But there are only about 3,500 pages being crawled.
Technical SEO | | Ishimoto0