homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

Canonical'ed Pages with noindex getting indexed

Msg#: 4375835 posted 8:49 am on Oct 18, 2011 (gmt 0)

Hey all,
since yesterday the amount of indexed pages jumped from 20k to 100k with the site: query. I hacked around a little and found that tons of pages got indexed where the following pattern occurs:
the page itself is noindex, follow and it has a canonical-url that points to a page that is index,follow.
Can it be that Google attempts to index pages too, that point (via canonical) to an indexed page?

The situation at hand are listing pages on an ecommerce site, where we've indexed the default sorting and have put the other sortings on noindex + canonical to the default sorting.

Anyone else seeing this issue?



WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

Msg#: 4375835 posted 5:17 pm on Oct 18, 2011 (gmt 0)

This sounds like a technical bug - either at Google or possibly something you haven't yet noticed on your site. I certainly hope that these estblished standards haven't been completely thrown out.


WebmasterWorld Administrator 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

Msg#: 4375835 posted 12:45 am on Oct 19, 2011 (gmt 0)

I always thought one should use either noindex or canonical link element, but not both as it does not make sense.

If both (canonical and noindex) are used on the same page, and especially if the noindex is coupled with "follow" (implicitly or explicitly), then should Google follow the links or not? Canonical link element sends the message "do not bother with this page, there is another one I want you to use instead". But then the explicit "follow" contradicts canonical link element.

I can see how Google can get confused although Google should be handle it better.


Msg#: 4375835 posted 8:27 am on Oct 19, 2011 (gmt 0)

Interesting thought on both noindex and canonical. I always thought two are better than one. Seems to be the opposite here. I'll give it a spin and see how it goes. Thanks for the moment!


5+ Year Member

Msg#: 4375835 posted 9:17 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

I know I am taking this a little off topic, I am making a new site at the moment and all this talk of thin content has made me want to do things right from the start. My Contact Us page, would this be considered thin content, and should I put a meta noindex tag on it?


Msg#: 4375835 posted 10:02 am on Dec 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

nah, I'd say it's legit content that could be indexed nor would it be considered thin (what the heck shall else be on a contact us page? This type of page is well known to Google).

For the purpose of optimizing the number of pages you have in the index you might want to set it to noindex, but the effect will be little because one more page in the index doesn't change the game. Also, people might want to search for it, i.e. "phone number (Your Company)".

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved