Google-selected canonical makes no sense
-
Howdy, fellow mozzers,
We have added canonical URL to this page - https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/houston-tx/margot-schurig-8715369/share, pointing to https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/houston-tx/margot-schurig-8715369
When I check in Google search console, there are no issues reported with that page, and Google does say that it was able to properly read the canonical URL.
Yet, it still chooses the page itself as canonical. This doesn't make sense to me. (Here is the link to the screenshot: https://dmitrii-regexseo.tinytake.com/tt/MzU0Mjc0M18xMDY2MTc4Ng)
Has anyone dealt with this type of issue, and were you able to resolve it?
-
Thanks for the reply.
Yeah, that makes sense, and that was my recommendation to add noindexing. I'm just curious about how and why Google decided that our canonical is not worth it
-
Oh wow that's very insensitive of Google! What you have to understand is that, most online content exists to sell products, to drive revenue and business - to a large degree that's how Google evaluates web-pages (the lens that it sees through)
If you page were commercial in nature (which obviously it is not) then Google would be making a semi logical decision. They're trying to skip users past the 'waffle and blurb' to the 'action point' where the user performs their only meaningful interaction with the page (in this case, a contact form)
For your site this is entirely inappropriate. To be honest you could Meta no-index and / or robots.txt block the "/share" (contact form) URL - to discourage Google from crawling and indexing it. Robots.txt controls crawling (less relevant), Meta no-index controls indexation. Note that like the canonical tag, these are both still 'directives' which Google doesn't 'have' to obey (fundamentally). Don't deploy both at once, as if you deploy robots.txt first (thus stopping Google from crawling the URL) - Google won't be able to crawl and 'find' the Meta no-index directive
Remember: telling Google not to crawl one URL, doesn't necessarily mean that your preferred URL will rank in its place
Your other option is to re-code the site, so that the contact form pops out in a content-box (or slider). That way, the contact from will share the same URL as the main page - thus Google will have to rank them both simultaneously (as it will have no choice)
Sorry that you have encountered such a difficult issue, hope my advice helps somewhat
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
-
Google image search
How does google decide which image show up in the image search section ? Is is based on the alt tag of the image or is google able to detect what is image is about using neural nets ? If it is using neural nets are the images you put on your website taken into account to rank a page ? Let's say I do walking tours in Italy and put a picture of the leaning tower of pisa as a top image while I be penalised because even though the picture is in italy, you don't see anyone walking ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics1 -
Google slow to index pages
Hi We've recently had a product launch for one of our clients. Historically speaking Google has been quick to respond, i.e when the page for the product goes live it's indexed and performing for branded terms within 10 minutes (without 'Fetch and Render'). This time however, we found that it took Google over an hour to index the pages. we found initially that press coverage ranked until we were indexed. Nothing major had changed in terms of the page structure, content, internal linking etc; these were brand new pages, with new product content. Has anyone ever experienced Google having an 'off' day or being uncharacteristically slow with indexing? We do have a few ideas what could have caused this, but we were interested to see if anyone else had experienced this sort of change in Google's behaviour, either recently or previously? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | punchseo0 -
Syntax: 'canonical' vs "canonical" (Apostrophes or Quotes) does it matter?
I have been working on a site and through all the tools (Screaming Frog & Moz Bar) I've used it recognizes the canonical, but does Google? This is the only site I've worked on that has apostrophes. rel='canonical' href='https://www.example.com'/> It's apostrophes vs quotes. Could this error in syntax be causing the canonical not to be recognized? rel="canonical"href="https://www.example.com"/>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ccox10 -
Rel=canonical
My website is built around a template, the hosting site say I can only add code into the body of the webpage not the header, will this be ok for rel=canonical If it is my next question is redundant but as there is only one place to put it which urls do I need to place in the code http://domain.com, www.domain.com or http://www.domain.com the /default.asp option for my website does not seem to exist, so I guess is not relevant thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | singingtelegramsuk0 -
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 -
HTTP Header Canonical Tags
I want to be able to add canonical tags to http headers of individual URL's using .htacess, but I can't find any examples for how to do this. The only example I found was when specifying a file: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-advanced-relcanonical-http-headers N.B. It's not possible to add regular canonical tags to the of my pages as they're dynamically generated. I was trying to add the following to the .htaccess in order to add a canonical tag in the header of the page http://frugal-father.com/is-finance-in-the-uk-too-london-centric/, but I've checked with Live HTTP headers and the canonical line isn't showing : <files "is-finance-in-the-uk-too-london-centric="" "="">Header add Link "<http: frugal-father.com="">; rel="canonical"'</http:></files> Any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndrewAkesson0 -
Google Places Multiple Location
Hi everyone, I have a client with multiple locations in the same city. I would like to have their Goolge places listing show up under the main website listing. Currently, one of the Google places listings in being pulled in directly below the main website but not the other. The Zagat rating is being pulled in as well. I would like to have both locations show up when you type in the name of the business. Any ideas how to do this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SixTwoInteractive0 -
Canonical Issue need hep
Hi Is my site has any issue with duplicate pages within the site , have i define my canonical tag properly , can any one advise please help. childrensfunkyfurniture.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | conversiontactics0