Member Avatar for Dani

We have permalinks for each individual post in the forum in the format /posts/jump/123. These URLs do a 301 redirect to the post in the full article, such as /full-article-url#post123. The landing pages have canonical URLs set to the full article URLs.

I just recently started having the issue of the shortened URLs appearing in Google as opposed to the full page versions. This is obviously an issue for two reasons.

  1. We lose all the breadcrumb information in the SERPS
  2. Multiple short URLs all point to the same destination URL, so we obviously want the one preferred URL in Google

Are my canonicals not set up right? What's going on??

  • 4 Contributors
  • 11 Replies
  • 219 Views
  • 4 Weeks Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by poly11

Recommended Answers

All 11 Replies

Member Avatar for cometton

Can you send a link/screenshot to the query you are running that displays the pages in question?

Member Avatar for Dani

search query: site:daniweb.com

Every result on pages 2 thru 10 for me

Edited by Dani
Member Avatar for LaxLoafer

One thought...

The canonical attribute should be used to specify a preferred version of a page with identical content. See: About rel="canonical", heading "Must the content on a set of pages be similar to the content on the canonical version?"
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

Could it be that Google is not recognizing the permalink and full article as identical content?

I found a permalink and its full article both in Google's cache. You can see this with the following query:
site:www.daniweb.com/web-development/php/code/387843/php-thumbnailer OR site:http://www.daniweb.com/posts/jump/1671625

Viewing the cached pages (with styles disabled), the HTML body content looks almost identical.

A wild guess...

Is it possible something in the HTML header is causing a problem, the meta description perhaps?

Member Avatar for Dani

I found a permalink and its full article both in Google's cache.

That's the problem :(

Is it possible something in the HTML header is causing a problem, the meta description perhaps?

I don't think so? I don't know. We're using rel=canonical so I can't see why Google isn't respecting that.

Member Avatar for cometton

Have you tried pointing the redirects to the final destination URL without the # appended? Generally, search engines don't index URLs with a # so Google may be instead keeping the old URL visible. It's strange for Google not to uphold the 301 redirect, however. Google is notorious for altering search results (Title tags, meta descriptions) beyond the default implemented by the webmaster. I'm assuming this is an attemmpt to control the overall user experience.

By chance, are any of the "jump" URLs listed in a sitemap/rss feed?

Member Avatar for Dani

Generally, search engines don't index URLs with a #

The pages have rel="canonical" that don't have the # though.

By chance, are any of the "jump" URLs listed in a sitemap/rss feed?

Nope.

Member Avatar for cometton

The pages have rel="canonical" that don't have the # though.

I believe Google is following the 301 redirect all the way to the point where the browser appends the # at the end of the URL. There is a post online that actually speaks to Googlebot actuallu being a headless browser (Chrome). Why it isn't de-indexing the "jump" URLs and following the canonical tag directive, it a bit of a head scratcher.

How long have those "jump" URLs been alive? If they are brand new, how would Google be able to crawl them?

Member Avatar for Dani

Why it isn't de-indexing the "jump" URLs and following the canonical tag directive, it a bit of a head scratcher.

Not only should it be following the canonical directive, but from what I understand, when there is a 301 redirect, the final destination is what is supposed to be indexed.

The jump URLs have been alive since our system launched, about 3 weeks ago.

Member Avatar for cometton

Were the jump URLs linked to from internal links when they were first rolled out? Googlebot must be finding them somewhere to be crawled and indexed, either internal links, external links or Sitemaps/Data Feeds.

This situation is bizarre as I have never seen Google blantantly disregard simple directives. I'm also not surprised to see Bing doing the opposite of Googlebot.

Member Avatar for LaxLoafer

Hi cscgal

The permalinks seem to be disappearing from Google search results. Out of curiosity, did you get to the bottom of this? What was the solution?

Edited by LaxLoafer
Member Avatar for poly11

first of first i want to says ...no budy knows how to google work...it is first thing..and second is.....

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.