Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Should pages with rel="canonical" be put in a sitemap?
- 
					
					
					
					
 I am working on an ecommerce site and I am going to add different views to the category pages. The views will all have different urls so I would like to add the rel="canonical" tag to them. Should I still add these pages to the sitemap? 
- 
					
					
					
					
 I would just title them according to their view type. Try to put your most informative words as close to the front as possible so that it's easy to read in browser tabs, for example: Red Widgets, All Widgets, <$25 Widgets... etc. Meta description could probably be a repeat of the title tag. Make the title as UX friendly as possible. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 - What are your thoughts on title tag and meta description on these pages? The only thing that changes on these pages is how the item is displayed. Should I change the title tag and meta description even though they should never be the organic landing page?
 
- 
					
					
					
					
 What are your thoughts on title tag and meta description on these pages? The only thing that changes on these pages is how the item is displayed. Should I change the title tag and meta description even though they should never be the organic landing page? 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Yes, I would not put them in the sitemap. Main goal of a sitemap is to make it easier for bots to discover the different pages of the site. The pages that have a canonical url pointing to another page don't really need this, as you don't want the search engines to index them anyway. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Since my preference is always to have people land on the page with thumbnails that is what I was thinking but wanted to double check. Thank you. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Based on how you're describing it, I'd leave them out of the sitemap. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 These pages will be almost identical. They are category pages for ecommerce and the only difference is it will display all items and there will be no thumbnails. It sounds like you are saying not to put them in the sitemap in this instance? 
- 
					
					
					
					
 They are category pages for an ecommerce site. Currently we list the items 25 to a page with a thumbnail. The second view will be all of the items in a basic list view with no thumbnails. We have some categories with several hundred items and our users have requested a way to see them all on one page. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Hi, Agree with the arguments of Ryan on the whether or not to put the canonical. However, if you decide that these pages are almost identical, and that you will use a canonical, it has no use to put all the variations of these pages in the sitemap. However, you should add the canonical version to the sitemap. It's not a big problem if these pages are in the sitemap, you'll just notice it webmaster tools a low % of indexed pages for this sitemap. rgds, Dirk 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Are the different views going to be substantially different pages or a reordering of products seen throughout each view? If the latter is the case I wouldn't use rel="canonical" for each view. If the pages are substantially different, like one is just displaying widgets, while the other is displaying widget maintenance tools, the having each of those pages as categorical sections to your store is worth it and worth being in the sitemap. 
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
- 
		
		Moz ToolsChat with the community about the Moz tools. 
- 
		
		SEO TacticsDiscuss the SEO process with fellow marketers 
- 
		
		CommunityDiscuss industry events, jobs, and news! 
- 
		
		Digital MarketingChat about tactics outside of SEO 
- 
		
		Research & TrendsDive into research and trends in the search industry. 
- 
		
		SupportConnect on product support and feature requests. 
Related Questions
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Using hreflang="en" instead of hreflang="en-gb"
 Hello, I have a question in regard to international SEO and the hreflang meta tag. We are currently a B2B business in the UK. Our major market is England with some exceptions of sales internationally. We are wanting to increase our ranking into other english speaking countries and regions such as Ireland and the Channel Islands. My research has found regional google search engines for Ireland (google.ie), Jersey (google.je) and Guernsey (google.gg). Now, all the regions have English as one their main language and here is my questions. Because I use hreflang=“en-gb” as my site language, am I regional excluding these countries and islands? If I used hreflang=“en” would it include these english speaking regions and possible increase the ranking on these the regional search engines? Thank you, Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SilverStar11
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Case Sensitive URLs, Duplicate Content & Link Rel Canonical
 I have a site where URLs are case sensitive. In some cases the lowercase URL is being indexed and in others the mixed case URL is being indexed. This is leading to duplicate content issues on the site. The site is using link rel canonical to specify a preferred URL in some cases however there is no consistency whether the URLs are lowercase or mixed case. On some pages the link rel canonical tag points to the lowercase URL, on others it points to the mixed case URL. Ideally I'd like to update all link rel canonical tags and internal links throughout the site to use the lowercase URL however I'm apprehensive! My question is as follows: If I where to specify the lowercase URL across the site in addition to updating internal links to use lowercase URLs, could this have a negative impact where the mixed case URL is the one currently indexed? Hope this makes sense! Dave Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | allianzireland0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Adding a Canonical Tag to each page referencing itself?
 Hey Mozers! I've noticed that on www.Zappos.com they have a Canonical tag on each page referencing it self. I have heard that this is a popular method but I dont see the point in canon tagging a page to its self. Any thoughts? Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rpaiva0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Using Canonical URL to poin to an external page
 I was wondering if I can use a canonical URL that points to a page residing on external site? So a page like: Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | llamb
 www.site1.com/whatever.html will have a canonical link in its header to www.site2.com/whatever.html. Thanks.0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Do I need to use rel="canonical" on pages with no external links?
 I know having rel="canonical" for each page on my website is not a bad practice... but how necessary is it for pages that don't have any external links pointing to them? I have my own opinions on this, to be fair - but I'd love to get a consensus before I start trying to customize which URLs have/don't have it included. Thank you. Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netrepid0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Pipe ("|") in my website's title is being replaced with ":" in Google results
 Hi , One of the websites I'm promoting and working on is www.pau-brasil.co.il. Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kadel
 It's wordpress-based website and as you can see the html's Title is "PauBrasil | some hebrew slogan".
 (Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/2f80EEY.gif)
 When I'm searching for "PauBrasil" (Which is the brand's name) , one of the results google shows is "PauBrasil: Some Hebrew Slogan" (Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/eJxNHrO.gif ) Why does the pipe is being replaced with ":" ?
 And not just that , as you can see there's a "blank space" missing between the the ":" to the slogan.
 (note: the websites has been indexed by google crawler at least 4 times so I find it hard to believe it can be the reason) I've keep on looking and found out that there's another page in that website with the exact same title
 but when I'm looking for it in google , it shows the title as it really is , with pipe. ("|").
 (Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/dtsbZV2.gif) Have you ever encountered something like that?
 Can it be that the duplicated title cause that weird "replacement"? Thanks in advance,
 Kadel0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		What is the best way to optimize/setup a teaser "coming soon" page for a new product launch?
 Within the context of a physical product launch what are some ideas around creating a /coming-soon page that "teases" the launch. Ideally I'd like to optimize a page around the product, but the client wants to try build consumer anticipation without giving too many details away. Any thoughts? Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GSI0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		NOINDEX listing pages: Page 2, Page 3... etc?
 Would it be beneficial to NOINDEX category listing pages except for the first page. For example on this site: http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/101/fsx-missions/ Has lots of pages such as Page 2, Page 3, Page 4... etc: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aflyawaysimulation.com+fsx+missions Would there be any SEO benefit of NOINDEX on these pages? Of course, FOLLOW is default, so links would still be followed and juice applied. Your thoughts and suggestions are much appreciated. Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640
 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				