Non-Canonical Pages still Indexed. Is this normal?
-
I have a website that contains some products and the old structure of the URL's was definitely not optimal for SEO purposes. So I created new SEO friendly URL's on my site and decided that I would use the canonical tags to transfer all the weight of the old URL's to the New URL's and ensure that the old ones would not show up in the SERP's. Problem is this has not quite worked. I implemented the canonical tags about a month ago but I am still seeing the old URL's indexed in Google and I am noticing that the cache date of these pages was only about a week ago.
This leads me to believe that the spiders have been to the pages and seen the new canonical tags but are not following them. Is this normal behavior and if so, can somebody explain to me why?
I know I could have just 301 redirected these old URL's to the new ones but the process I would need to go through to have that done is much more of a battle than to just add the canonical tags and I felt that the canonical tags would have done the job. Needless to say the client is not too happy right now and insists that I should have just used the 301's. In this case the client appears to be correct but I do not quite understand why my canonical tags did not work.
Examples Below-
Old Pages:
www.awebsite.com/something/something/productid.3254235
New Pages:
www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name
Canonical tag on both pages:
rel="canonical" href="http://www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name"/> Thanks guys for the help on this.
-
It can take a while. I disagree very slightly with Alan and EGOL on one point - while 301s are traditionally more appropriate here, I often find that canonicals are pretty strong (and more than a hint). Both suffer the same problem, though - the signal has to be crawled and processed, and that doesn't always take right away. I haven't seen any reports on it taking 2, 3, etc. times to happen, but I've definitely seen a page re-cache without the indexation signals beign honored.
Are these true duplicates or did something change in the interim a bit? If the duplicates don't seem like true duplicates or you put 1000s of them out there all at once, Google could choose to ignore the canonicals.
If these really seem stuck, though, switching to 301s is harmless, and for a permanent URL change, it is probably the better way to go. I wouldn't expect that to kick in instantly either, though.
-
Yes... I agree with Alan. Canonical is a hint.
We put rel=canonical on about 250 pages in early February. As of today about 1/2 of those pages are still in the SERPs. The numbers are falling but this is really really slow to implement.
If you have done everything correctly it will probably work but requires patience.
-
Alan, I appreciate the help. I will go with this and see what happens and try to find those videos. Graci.
-
Matt cutts has said it a few times in videos, i could not tell you what ones without doing a far bit of searching.
-
Yes they should, but 301's and canonicals leak link juice, so you want your links to go directly to the correct page where you can.
See half way down this page, you will see just how easy it is to do all this, with a few clicks.
http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/microsoft-technologies-and-seo-web-development
for you it may not be quiest as easy as you are converting from id to product name, but if you look into the url rewrite module a bit further you will see it is posible to do this once for all pages
-
Also do you know of any documentation that states that it takes a few passes for a canonical tag to be honored and also for 301's as well? That would really help me explain my initial thoughts on using the canonical tag.
-
I get the part about the 301's and I believe we have iis7 but between departments, just not as simple of a change especially regarding the number of products I have to do this for, 800+.
Regarding the links to the old URL, it was my belief that with the canonical tag, that weight should transfer over to the the new URL as well or was I mistaken on that?
-
You seem to have done everything ok, but from my understanding google does not honer 301's or caninicals first crawl, they wait a few times to make sure its not a mistake.
What sort of server are you using? if you are using windows with iis7 is is very easy to impliment the urlrewites and corasponding 301's
i would 301, a canonical is a hint, a301 is a directive. and also if people stil go to your old pages, they may make a link to the old page rather then the new url.
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
-
Keywords are indexed on the home page
Hello everyone, For one of our websites, we have optimized for many keywords. However, it seems that every keyword is indexed on the home page, and thus not ranked properly. This occurs only on one of our many websites. I am wondering if anyone knows the cause of this issue, and how to solve it. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | Ginovdw1 -
Which pages should I index or have in my XML sitemap?
Hi there, my website is ConcertHotels.com - a site which helps users find hotels close to concert venues. I have a hotel listing page for every concert venue on my site - about 12,000 of them I think (and the same for nearby restaurants). e.g. https://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/madison-square-garden-hotels/304484 Each of these pages list the nearby hotels to that concert venue. Users clicking on the individual hotel are brought through to a hotel (product) page e.g. https://www.concerthotels.com/hotel/the-new-yorker-a-wyndham-hotel/136818 I made a decision years ago to noindex all of the /hotel/ pages since they don't have a huge amount of unique content and aren't the pages I'd like my users to land on . The primary pages on my site are the /venue-hotels/ listing pages. I have similar pages for nearby restaurants, so there are approximately 12,000 venue-restaurants pages, again, one listing page for each concert venue. However, while all of these pages are potentially money-earners, in reality, the vast majority of subsequent hotel bookings have come from a fraction of the 12,000 venues. I would say 2000 venues are key money earning pages, a further 6000 have generated income of a low level, and 4000 are yet to generate income. I have a few related questions: Although there is potential for any of these pages to generate revenue, should I be brutal and simply delete a venue if it hasn't generated revenue within a time period, and just accept that, while it "could" be useful, it hasn't proven to be and isn't worth the link equity. Or should I noindex these "poorly performing pages"? Should all 12,000 pages be listed in my XML sitemap? Or simply the ones that are generating revenue, or perhaps just the ones that have generated significant revenue in the past and have proved to be most important to my business? Thanks Mike
Technical SEO | | mjk260 -
Implemented google adwords via tag manager do it still require to paste script at thank you page?
Hi All Experts, I have implemented google adwords with tag manager, so now query is still it is required to place the google adwords scripts at thank you page?
Technical SEO | | varo0 -
Canonical Tags on Parameter Pages With Hreflang
Hey Everyone: We are currently implementing hreflang tags on our site, and we have many parameter pages with hreflang tags; however, I am afraid these may be counted as duplicate content without canonical tags. example.com/utm_source=tpi href='http://example.com/de" hreflang="de" rel="alternate" href='http://example.com/nl" hreflang="nl" rel="alternate" href='http://example.com/fr" hreflang="fr" rel="alternate" href='http://example.com/it" hreflang="it" rel="alternate" I have two questions 1. Do I need a canonical tag pointing to example.com ? 2. On the homepage without the parameter, should I add self referencing hreflang tags? (href="http://example.com/" hreflang="es" Thanks so much for your help! Kyle
Technical SEO | | TeespringMoz0 -
Pages to be indexed in Google
Hi, We have 70K posts in our site but Google has scanned 500K pages and these extra pages are category pages or User profile pages. Each category has a page and each user has a page. When we have 90K users so Google has indexed 90K pages of users alone. My question is. Should we leave it as they are or should we block them from being indexed? As we get unwanted landings to the pages and huge bounce rate. If we need to remove what needs to be done? Robots block or Noindex/Nofollow Regards
Technical SEO | | mtthompsons0 -
Page not indexed but still has a PageRank, how?
http://www.optiproerp.com/products.aspx page is not indexed in Google but still has a PageRank of 1. How? Regards
Technical SEO | | IM_Learner0 -
Google indexing directory folder listing page
Google somehow managed to find several of our images index folders and decided to include them into their index. Example: websitesite.com/category/images/ is what you'll see when doing a site:website.com search. So, I have two-part question: 1) Does this hurt our site's ability to rank in any way?
Technical SEO | | invision
Because all Google sees is just a directory listing page with a bunch of links to images in the folder. 2) If there could be any negative effect, what is the best way to get these folders out of Google's index?
I could block via robots.txt, but I'm afraid it will also block all the images in that folder from being indexed in Google image search. I could also turn off directory listing in cpanel / htaccess, but then that gives is a 403 forbidden. Will this hurt the site in anyway and would it prevent Google from indexing the images in the directory? Thanks,
Tony0 -
Should there be a canonical tag on my 404 error page?
In my crawl diagnostics, I notice some 4xx client errors. They are appearing for pages that no longer exist, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Shouldn't they just be dealt as 404's? Anyway, on closer inspection I noticed that my 404 error page contains a canonical tag which points to the missing page. Could this be the issue? Is it a good idea to remove the canonical tag from this error page? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Leighm0