canonical links or alternative content
- SEO |
Links to this profile page may occur from several different categorized lists that each contain important search keywords in the URL. For example,
/Attorneys/San Diego Criminal Attorneys/John Doe
/Attorneys/San Diego Personal Injury Attorneys/John Doe
/Attorneys/San Diego Divorce Attorneys/John Doe
I have at least two choices here. I can canonicalize the profile page link with something like:
/Attorneys/San Diego Attorney/John Doe
But by telling search bots that this is the primary page, am I not losing important keyword ranking in the URL? In other words, will the index bots still rank the keywords from the other sources?
Alternatively, I could create separate profile pages for each category. The downside to this is that internal page rank pointing to these profile pages would be spread across several individual profile pages instead of building rank for a single page.
The other question would be, how much additional content would need to be added to each profile page for Google to consider it non-duplicate? For example, if I change the page title, descriptions, and add additional text to the profile page that includes the category keywords would this be sufficient to avoid the duplicate content issue if the rest of the profile information on the page remains the same?
I am NOT an SEO specialist. Our goal has always been to create good content and let the bots do their thing. This practice has treated me well (as content is in fact King). However, as the site has grown to over a million indexed pages, I an endeavoring to adhere to best practice wherever feasible. Part of this process is restructuring dynamic urls to include silo path type urls in front of the dynamic parameter strings for better clarity and indexability. We were already using canonicals to try and minimize any duplicate content issues with the dynamic script driven urls, but during this process, I want to revisit all this.
Thanks in advance for any input. It is appreciated.
-
onsett -
[ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9839498].message }} -