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
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
-
URL, Breadcrumb/Site Hierarchy Display, User (and Bot) Expectations
TL;DR: Do parts of URLs that are used throughout the web quite consistently have any influence on robots (or users)? Are there any studies? What would you use for pages that are something between a tag-page and a wiki-like article? Long version: On a site with a lot of content, I decided to go for tags to present articles on that topic together. My first thought was to simply list those under the URL /tag/{Tag_Name}. Short. Simple. Grabs the core meaning - on this page you'll find stuff about the tag. But: those tag-pages will be more than just lists of the tagged pages (let's say they are articles on various topics and products with certain attributes and the same tag can apply to a product and an article). The tag pages themselves will often talk a lot about the use of said tag - extensively, without blabbering. It is aimed at being a landing page and hub for the tag/keyword. Having this in mind, I pondered using /wiki/. It does fit in some respects, but it really is not a wiki. /info/, /lexicon/, /knowledge/ and other ideas came to mind but the more I thought the weirder I did find most ideas. What I am now wondering: Do these parts of URLs (/tag/, or /product/, or /wiki/) that are not really keywords in most cases have any influence on search engines? They are used quite consistently across the web and therefore could be used as signals. I suspect, though, that they might have more influence on shaping user expectation. (If I see /wiki/ in an URL or site hierarchy display (breadcrumb), I expect ... well, a wiki-style page; if I see /tag/ I expect a collection of stuff with that tag.) What would you chose if it is not quite a tag, nor quite a wiki but something in-between? Or do you think it does not matter at all? (Breadcrumbs will be used and google has used them for display in just about all SERPs.) Are there perchance any studies concerning these parts of URLS? Regards Nico
On-Page Optimization | | netzkern_AG0 -
Using keywords in my URL: Doing a redirect to /keyword
My website in "On Page Grade" received an A.Anyway, I only have 1 thing to optimize:_"Use Keywords in your URL__Using your targeted keywords in the URL string adds relevancy to your page for search engine rankings, assists potential visitors identify the topic of your page from the URL, and provides SEO value when used as the anchor text of referring links."_My website is ranking in top10 for a super high competitive keyword and all my others competitors have the keyword on their domain, but not for my URL.Since I can't change my domain for fixing this suggestion, I would like to know what do you think about doing a 301 redirect from / to mydomainname.com/keyword/So the index of my website would be the /keyword.I don't know if this can make a damage to my SERP for the big change ir it would be a great choice.
On-Page Optimization | | estebanseo0 -
Should i make all of my pages with canonical tag
Hi, Im using thesis Wordpress theme, and their default option is "Add canonical <acronym title="Uniform Resource Locator">URL</acronym>s to your site" im just wandering if i should keep that box checked and apply canonical <acronym title="Uniform Resource Locator">URL</acronym>s to all of my pages? Thank You
On-Page Optimization | | Vmezoz0 -
Dealing with thin content/95% duplicate content - canonical vs 301 vs noindex
My client's got 14 physical locations around the country but has a webpage for each "service area" they operate in. They have a Croydon location. But a separate page for London, Croydon, Essex, Luton, Stevenage and many other places (areas near Croydon) that the Croydon location serves. Each of these pages is a near duplicate of the Croydon page with the word Croydon swapped for the area. I'm told this was a SEO tactic circa 2001. Obviously this is an issue. So the question - should I 301 redirect each of the links to the Croydon page? Or (what I believe to be the best answer) set a rel=canonical tag on the duplicate pages). Creating "real and meaningful content" on each page isn't quite an option, sorry!
On-Page Optimization | | JamesFx0 -
"Canonical URL Tag Usage" recommendation in SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool
Here comes another one related to SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool. The tool says the following about one of our pages: Canonical URL Tag Usage Explanation: Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to
On-Page Optimization | | gerardoH
use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future
developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe
the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic
today. Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page. Let's say our page is http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand and on its header we'll place the following tag: Is this correct? I thought the canonical tag was meant for duplicates of the original page, for example: http://www.example.com/brands/print/abc-brand href="http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand**?SESSID=123** Thanks in advance.0 -
Rel Canonical
Hi Folks I have 77 Rel Canonical warning, and mostly confuse me. Mainly because they seem to be the exact link I would expect for that page. So I'm not so sure why they have been flagged.... two examples below Any thoughts or tips? (please 🙂 ) | Page Title
On-Page Optimization | | PHDAustralia68
URL | Tag value | Page Authority | Linking Root Domains | | BlueTea: New Sydney Kitchen Designs Company, Renovations, Colour Designs http://bluetea.com.au/ bluetea.com.au/ 37 18 Blog | Blue Tea http://bluetea.com.au/2010/10/?cat=15 | bluetea.com.au/category/blog/ | 1 | 0 |
| |0 -
Trailing slash on URLs
Hi everyone My question is regarding trailing URLs in Wordpress A designer setup a site and made the URL structure something like: www.website.com/description/ but I want to change it to www.website.com/description as this is more SEF A trailing / was added to the permalink structure in Wordpress, if I change this will google see these as new URLs and will all the current URLs become 404? Or should I just leave it? Thanks in advance
On-Page Optimization | | webseoservices0 -
Site URL's
We are redeveloping our website, and have the option to amend URLs (with 301 redirects from old URL to new), so my question is: Would 'golfsite.com/golf-clubs' achieve superior rankings than 'golfsite.com/clubs' for the search term 'golf clubs' if all other factors were the same? Should the URL reflect the intended search term wherever possible?
On-Page Optimization | | swgolf1230