Web page redirection can seem like a bit of a minefield. The 301 redirect and canonical options have been about for years, but they tend to make confusion and consistently stir-up questions and debate on best practices.
This post will focus on the two main methods of running the redirection of a single page on your website – the 301 redirect and the rel="canonical" attribute – to conquer copy content issues, sustain your website rankings, and improve user experience.
What's The Difference?
Though there are a few old areas, Google provides some clear guidelines to make sure we all know how they want us to manage redirections. In very simple terms, here is what each communicates to Google and search engines:
301 – Hey, Search Engines: My page is no longer here, and has eternally moved to a new page. Please remove it from your index and pass credit to the new page.
Canonical – Hey, Search Engines: I have many versions of this page (or content), please only index this version. I'll keep the others accessible for people to see, but don't include them in your index and please pass credit to my ideal page.
Now, let's get into some of the details…
301 Redirects
The 301 HTTP rank code has always been the standard for managing the complete and permanent redirection of a page. By implementing this command you will be finally pass the majority of the original page's link authority, relevance and ranking power to the page you are redirecting to. Google's famed Engineer Matt Cutts has said, you'll lose "just a tiny little bit, not very much at all" which "doesn't change over time".
The 301 tells both users and search engines that your unique page is no longer relevant and that the most relevant and up to date information can be found on your new page.
Sounds simple enough, right?
Common Problems with 301
There are a few possible problems with implementing a 301 redirect.
First, it might not be possible for you to implement HTTP status codes. Maybe you don't have FTP access, or maybe your web designers have told you it isn't possible. Either way, without server-side access, a 301 simply isn't an option.
Another possible disadvantage of the 301 is that it does sometimes take a while for the search engines to attribute your new page with the search power of your original page. This all depends on how often your site, and the original page, is crawled by the search engines. This delay means that a 301 is something you should never rely on for short term or last minute campaigns.
Finally, the most common trouble is the 301 being used incorrectly. It's surprisingly common to see marketers develop a completely new site and then use a 301 to point all the pages of the original website to new site's homepage. This isn't what the 301 is planned for. This approach undermines the relevancy of any search traffic and could result in a very high bounce rate. It's a lose/lose situation and unfortunately, this is just one example among many.
Don't let these issues put you off. A 301 forward is still the clear choice for permanent page redirection in most cases.
When to Use 301
• As failure to pay – this is the preferred method
• Pages that are being eternally moved or replaced
• Domains that are permanently moved (acquisitions, rebranding, etc.)
• 404 pages and expired content (assuming relevant content or a page exists)
The rel="canonical" Attribute
The rel="canonical" attribute, though it is often incorrectly used as a 301 replacement, is something entirely different. Rather than physically sending users to a more recent or pertinent page, rel="canonical" is a signal that's purely for the benefit of the search engines.
There are often situations where you may have a number of web pages with either very similar or alike content. We all know that duplicate content is dangerous territory, so that's when to use the rel="canonical".
Let's say you have two (or more) pages both catalog the same series of products. One lists them alphabetically and the other by price. They contain the same content, but have different URLs. If you were to leave both pages only, Google would index both, but pick which one it believes is the most relevant and could filter the page you really want to be appearing in the SERPs.
By placing rel="canonical" on the alphabetical page important the search engines that the price page is your preferred choice, you avoid all these issues. This tells the search engines that you acknowledge that the content on these two pages is very similar and that the pricing page is the most significant for users.
Regarding the amount of PageRank or link juice that would be lost from canonical redirects, Cutts has also said "there's actually not a whole lot of difference" between the 301 and the canonical. This means the 301 and the canonical will drop "just a tiny little bit, not very much at all" of credit from the referring page.
To reinforce this, the Google Webmaster Central Blog states "Additional URL properties, like PageRank and related signals, are transferred as well."
Common Problems with Canonical
As with the 301 redirect, there are some restrictions to rel="canonical".
First, it's only a plan. Though the major search engines all state that they do pay close notice to rel="canonical", they aren't obliged to follow them. This means that you may still see your ‘duplicate' pages rarely being shown ahead of your preferred page in some SERPs.
Again, the biggest problem with rel="canonical" is how usually it is misused. The most common misuse of the tag is when it's implemented on pages that don't include a large proportion of the same content as the canonical page. Unless they contain considerable mass of duplicate content, rel="canonical" probably shouldn't be used.
Another common misuse of the tag occurs with multiple, connected pages. For example, you might have written a long blog post on your site that you've decided to break up into five parts. Each of these parts is on a separate page with its own unique URL.
When to use Canonical
• When 301s can't be implemented, or take too much time
• Duplicate content but you want to go on both pages live
• Dynamic pages with several URLs of a single page (from sorting features, tracking options, etc.)
• Site-wide considerations like (domain/page/index.html vs. domain/page/ for the same page) can be easier with canonicals
• Cross-domain considerations where both sites are related, but need to remain live
Summary
Redirect options can be menacing, but hopefully now you have greater precision on the best course of action. Both options will pass a similar amount of link juice, and will be treated equally by Google. But in general, the 301 redirect is the favorite route.
No comments:
Post a Comment