Using Canonical Link Element to Index Vanity URLs - Google Implications?

[Uber_SEO]

Hi all - I run a large ecommerce website that sells trainers. Due to the CMS that we use, a lot of our URLs are horrible, and there's not a huge amount we can do about. Recently, we've been testing whether we can use canonical tags to force Google to index "vanity" URLs.

Our longform URLs are of the form www.domain.com/trainer_3655_XYZG-4550505-blue. Internal navigation points to these URLs.

We've been testing a scenario whereby we 302 redirect a vanity URL (i.e. www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer) to the above URL, and then within the actual page, we use a canonical tag that then points back to www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer.

What this means is that the content of www.domain.com/trainer_3655_XYZG-4550505-blue gets indexed under the URL of www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer, and the canonical tag passes all link equity to www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer, so we don't need to worry about changing internal links. www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer should then start ranking in Google, instead of www.domain.com/trainer_3655_XYZG-4550505-blue.

We've tested this, and the technique works a dream, exactly as we'd hoped.

So my question is, what would Google think of this? Back in the day, 302 redirects from vanity URLs to complex URLs used to be quite common, but that was long before canonical tags. Do you think Google would mind us doing this? Do you think Google would mind us doing this at scale? It would save us a ton of work (migrating to a new CMS etc...), and ultimately the end effect is the same. I don't think we're doing anything wrong, but I'm keen to understand if Google would think any differently?

[martinibuster]

and the canonical tag passes all link equity to www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer

The canonical tag doesn't pass anything. It's treated as a strong suggestion.

A 302 redirect is mandatory, it forces crawlers and browsers to detour to another URL. It happens at the server level before any content is served.

The use of a canonical tag is unnecessary and superfluous on a user friendly URL that has been redirected from a user un-friendly URL.

The proper use of a canonical tag is for situations where a CMS generates multiple URLs for the same content, caused by navigating to the content in different ways or from the appending of additional strings to the end of the URL. The canonical tag is used in those circumstances to suggest to the search engine which URL is the true URL. The search engine can then choose to consolidate all the link equity of the other URLs into the canonical (but it's optional!).

On another topic, the use of the phrase Vanity URL hides the actual value of that kind of URL. A more appropriate description is User Friendly URL and a more common description is Search Engine Friendly URL. I tend to focus on the user by creating URLs that are user friendly. User Friendly URLs assists in the promotion of the pages which then helps in the ranking. So my preference is for User Friendly URLs. ;)

Good luck!

mb

[Uber_SEO]

If I didn't use the canonical tag though, we would end up with multiple URLs with the same content. The canonical tag reduces this duplication down to a single URL - that with the user-friendly URL .

[martinibuster]

Your original post states that you have one URL that is unfriendly that is redirected to a friendly version. Are there more versions of the non-user friendly URLs that correspond to the single user friendly URL?

[Uber_SEO]

OK, let me explain again. The content sits on the unfriendly URL, and is the established URL (it has both internal and external links). The friendly URL 302 redirects to the unfriendly URL, and we add a canonical tag within the actual content (which sits under the unfriendly URL) that points to the friendly URL.

[broncanus]

The friendly URL 302 redirects to the unfriendly URL, and we add a canonical tag within the actual content (which sits under the unfriendly URL) that points to the friendly URL.

So, based on your last post, it sounds like the following is true:

www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer
>> 302 >>
www.domain.com/trainer_3655_XYZG-4550505-blue
>> CANONICAL >>
www.domain.com/adidas-blue-gazelle-trainer

If so, then you're creating a loop that's creating mixed signals.

[martinibuster]

I agree broncanus, that scenario is indeed odd. It's not going to create an actual loop though because as we all know, the canonical is just a suggestion. Google will in the final tally simply ignore it.

The canonical will not force Google to accept the Keyword URL as the true URL. Any link equity (aka ranking fairy dust) acquired by the Keyword URL will indeed be credited to the Unfriendly URL. But the link equity will not be looped back to the Keyword URL by the canonical. But if the Keyword URL is orphaned then it's simply not going to have any link equity effect at all. In other words it's pointless from a ranking perspective.

For example, this is similar to registering a keyword rich domain name and pointing it to a relevant section of your site. I've done that in the past to make it easier for users to reach certain sections of a site, but I've never promoted the Domain URL and the Domain URL has never shown up in the index and it's never affected my rankings. Thus, it was done for users to help them quickly navigate to a section of a site but it was pointless from the perspective of rankings. Btw, I don't recommend redirecting domains to sections of a site, for reasons I won't discuss here as that's off topic.

[lucy24]

The friendly URL 302 redirects to the unfriendly URL

Why, for ### sake? If you're able to redirect, you should equally be able to rewrite (address bar shows A, while content is at B). Save the redirect for requests coming in the other direction (asked for B when you wanted them to ask for A).

Internal navigation points to these URLs.

That sounds like the root of the problem. If there's no way to stop your internal navigation from pointing to the long ugly URL, then you may as well just use that same long ugly URL for everything. Isn't there any way you get get your internal links to use the short pretty URL?