Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
SEO has published details about the website audit in which he has criticized the use of rel = canonical for controls that are pages indexed on the site. SEO is proposed using Noindex to reject the pages from the Google Index and then add individual URL to Robots.txt. Google’s John Mueller suggested a solution going in the other direction.
The website audit reveals an indexed add to the URL cart
The SEO audit revealed that more than half of the client’s indexed pages of 1.43K were paginated and “Add to the URL Cart (type with questionnaires at the end of them). Google ignored the attributes of rel = canonical connections and indexed the pages, which illustrated the point that rel = canonical is just a hint, not a directive. Paginated in this case just means dynamically generated URL associated with it when a website visitor commands a page to the brand or size or anything else (this is usually called fascinated navigation).
The URL -the basket for the basket they added like this:
example.com/product/page-5/?add-to-cart=example
The client implemented an attribute of rel = canonical connections to make Google say that the second URL was the correct URL for indexing.
SEO SOLUTION:
“How I plan to fix it is without an index of all these pages and when you do it, block them in robots.txt”
SEO Decision depends on details
One of the most stylish and annoying jokes on Daddy is “It depends.” But to say “it depends” is not a joke when it follows what it depends on and it is a key detail that John Mueller has added to Linkedin’s discussion that already had 83 answers.
The original discussion, by the SEO who has just completed the audit, deals with the technical challenges associated with the control of what Google crawls and indexes and why REL = canonian is not an unreliable solution because it is a proposal, not a directive.
The Directive is a command that Google is obliged to follow, such as Meta noindex rules. The attribute of the rel = canonical connection is not a directive, it is treated as a hint that Google is used to decide what to index.
The problem described by the original post related to the management of a large number of dynamically generated posts that entered the Google Index.
John Mueller to deal with unwanted indexed URL -ova
Mueller’s acceptance of the problem was to suggest the importance of examining the URL for patterns that can give the idea of why the unwanted URL is indexed and then applied in a more detailed (more specific) solution.
Advised:
“You already seem to have a lot of comments here, so my 2 cents are more like a random passerby …
-I would examine the forms for the patterns and look at the specifics, not to treat it as an random list of the URL you want canonical. These are not random, using a generic solution will not be optimal for any site – you would ideally do something specific to this specific situation. Aka “it depends.”
– You seem to have a lot of URL -ov “add to the baskets” – you can easily block them with the URL pattern via Robots.txt. You do not need to canonize them, they should not be crawled in normal crawling (this and messes up your metrics).
– There is also a certain amount of pagination, filtering in the URL parameters – see our options for this.
-After more technical holes for rabbits, see https://search-f-fa-record.libsyn.com/handling-dupes-same-or-different “
Why did Google Index URL -Inquiry parameters?
The topic that has been launched by more people in the discussion of LinkedIn -is the problem of the Google Indexation of the URL cart (add to the URL -DOBE cart). No answers listed, but it can be something special for a basket platform and solving, which can be limited to the solutions described above.
