Canonicalization
-
I understand what canonicalization does, however I'm a bit confused on one point.
Generally, of course it's used to determine the main article out of two which are identical.
But what happens to the keywords if the content isn't quite identical?
Example:-
Let's say the 'first page' it is optimised for 'racing cycles'.
The 'second page' is optimised for 'second-hand racing cycles'Let's assume that the 'first page' doesn't have any reference to 'used' or 'second-hand' so it would be essentially unrelated to the 'second page'.
If I then add an canonical tag to the 'second page' that points to the 'first page' in theory, the 'second page' will drop from the search rankings and pass any link authority back to the 'first page'
What I want to know is will the 'first page', then rank for the keywords that the second page used to rank for? (in this case 'second-hand racing cycles')
-
Hi Mike,
That new tool is very revealing and supports my experience that you can't dupe Google into ranking a different page just by canonicalization. Thanks!
Nigel
-
Hi seoman,
I think Nigel is spot-on here and has summarized the issues at hand well.
One thing to add: If you do deploy canonicals but are not sure how/when Google is respecting or ignoring them, the new "URL Inspector" tool in the new version of Search Console provides some helpful (and unprecedented) reporting detail on this, including URLs for "User-declared canonical" (what you set in your tag) and "Google-selected canonical" (the URL Google opted to treat as canonical).
While there doesn't seem to be any clarity as to why Google selected an alternative, sometimes the URL they picked provides a hint. We've never had this clarity from Google before on when they've opted to select a different canonical URL, so it's good to at least know when it's happening.
Best,
Mike -
Hi seoman
Canonicalisation was set up by Google originally to deal with pages which were basically the same but had two different URLs so for example:
website/cycles/racing-cycles
website/cycles/productid=123If the URL contained content that was the same then you would add a canonical on the second one pointing at the first. The second one would then drop from serps and the first one would be allowed to breathe and in most cases rise because the duplicate content was taken away.
People then started to use it in a more sophisticated way and as your example shows you could canonicalse 'second-hand racing cycles to racing-cycles. This would only be in a circumstance where you believed that the content on the second-hand page was so similar to the racing-cycles page that you would find it really hard to rank for both.
So you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles which could be a good move. The thing is that Google won't combine content from both pages it will simply rely on the content of the racing-cycles page to rank it. You must make sure that the racing-cycles page contains everything you would want both pages to be found for.
Now here's the problem.
If you canonicalse second-hand cycles to racing-cycles and the two pages are very different then Google can start to distrust your canonicals and show the page in serps anyway! (serps = search engine results pages - so they have to be very similar. It would truly be a disaster if you canonicalise one to the other and they both still ranked (badly ) but I have seen this happen.
So the rule is:
1. Only canonicalise if both pages serve the same user intent
2. Make sure that the two pages are very similar otherwise Google can ignore the canonical
3. If they are just not similar build-up the content on second-hand cycles to take it away from just racing-cycles and have it as a separate page or sub-page of racing-cycles.The conclusion is that if you want racing-cycles to rank for all the keywords and phrases that second-hand cycles does, then include them and synonyms on the page.
I hope that helps
Nigel
-
If the contents are not identical, you don't need to worry about losing the rankings. Second-page ranking will be dropped if contents are same.
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
-
cross canonicalization with redirect
I'm working with a website that has turned one of its pages into its own website within the main website - mostly for the ease of customers, making it simpler to access that page using www.page.com rather than www.mainsite.com/about/page.
Technical SEO | | Shrine.SEO.Gal
As a result, there are two urls for that page (the ones just mentioned), both pointing to the exact same page, but with different urls. Now, they have made it so www.mainsite.com/about/page permanently redirects to www.page.com. which I thought was a good call. However, what do I do about canonicalization? Is it good to point the canonicalization of www.page.com to www.mainsite.com/about/page so that the rankings and link equity are maintained in the main website? Or would the fact that the www.mainsite.com/about/page redirects to www.page.com mess that up? I hope this makes sense!0 -
Should I canonicalize URLs with no query params even though query params are always automatically appended?
There's a section of my client's website that presents quarterly government financial data. Users can filter results to see different years and quarters of financial info. If a user navigates to those pages, the URLs automatically append the latest query parameters. It's not a redirect...when I asked a developer what the mechanism was for this happening, he said "magic." He honestly didn't know how to describe it. So my question is, is it ok to canonicalize the URL without any query parameters, knowing that the user will always be served a page that does have query parameters? I need to figure out how to manage all of the various versions of these URLs.
Technical SEO | | LeahH0 -
SEO Elements for Canonicalized URLs?
I am helping a client with SEO for their ecommerce store. They have around 65 products, but close to 500 URLs all for those same products. Basically they have a bit of an index bloat problem but long story short restructuring was too much of a lift for them, so I got them set up with a canonical URL strategy to ensure all duplicate pages point to one "main" product page. Getting to the point: They also need an on-page overhaul. I've created keyword optimized titles, metas, H1s, etc. for each product. Do these elements need to be added to every single one of the 450+ product pages OR do I only need to add them to the 65 "main" product pages that everything else is pointing to, since that will ultimately be the page that gets crawled?
Technical SEO | | AJTSEO0 -
Should you use the canonicalization tag when the content isn't exactly a duplicate?
We have a site that pull data from different sources with unique urls onto a main page and we are thinking about using the canonicalization tag to keep those source pages from being indexed and to give any authority to the main page. But this isn’t really what canonicalization is supposed to be used for so I’m unsure of if this is the right move.
Technical SEO | | Fuel
To give some more detail: We manage a site that has pages for individual golf courses. On the golf course page in addition to other general information we have sections on that page that show “related articles” and “course reviews”.
We may only show 4 or 5 on each of those courses pages per page, but we have hundreds of related articles and reviews for each course. So below “related articles” on the course page we have a link to “see more articles” that would take the user to a new page that is simply a aggregate page that houses all the article or review content related to that course.
Since we would rather have the overall course page rank in SERPs rather than the page that lists these articles, we are considering canonicalizing the aggregate news page up to the course page.
But, as I said earlier, this isn’t really what the canonicalization tag is intended for so I’m hesitant.
Has anyone else run across something like this before? What do you think?0 -
Linking to AND canonicalizing to a page?
I am using cross domain rel=canonical to a page that is very similar to mine. I feel the page adds value to my site so I want users to go to it, but I ultimately want them to go to the page I'm canonicalizing to. So I am linking to that page as well. Anyone foresee any issues with doing this? And/or have other suggestions? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Canonicalization on my website
I am kind of new to all this but I would like to understand canonicalization. I have a website which when you arrive on it is www.mysite.com but once inside and flicking back to the homepage it reverts to www.mysite.com/index.html. Should I be doing something re canonicalization? If so what? Will the link juice be diluted by having two home page versions? Thanks
Technical SEO | | FCAbroad0 -
What's the best canonicalization method?
Hi there - is there a canonicalization method that is better than others? Our developers have used the
Technical SEO | | GBC0 -
Homepage canonicalized with trailing slash
We were told by a consultant that in SEO it is best practice to canonicalize our homepage URL with the trailing slash. What do you think about doing this for the homepage? Is it important for other site links to have the trailing slash as well
Technical SEO | | fibers0