Tag Archive for: search result rankings

Every brand wants to put their best foot forward. If you want to do that online, you need to understand what canonical URLs are. So, today we are going to talk a bit about what canonical URLs are, why your pages may have a canonical version, and how Google chooses which page is the canonical page. 

What Are Canonical URLs?

A canonical URL or web page is the version of a page selected to be indexed by Google when there are multiple versions of the page. 

This version of the page is used by Google to rank the web page and be displayed in search results in order to prevent duplicate search listings. 

As the owner of the website, you have some control over which pages are chosen to be canonical URLs. As we will get into further down, though, Google doesn’t always select the page you believe should be the canonical version.

Before we get to that, let’s take a moment to talk about the legitimate reasons why you may have duplicate versions of a page.

5 Reasons For Having Duplicate Web Pages

According to Google’s official documentation and guidelines about canonical webpages, the search engine believes there are five legitimate reasons a webpage may have multiple versions. 

  1. Region variants: for example, a piece of content for the USA and the UK, accessible from different URLs, but essentially the same content in the same language
  2. Device variants: for example, a page with both a mobile and a desktop version
  3. Protocol variants: for example, the HTTP and HTTPS versions of a site
  4. Site functions: for example, the results of sorting and filtering functions of a category page
  5. Accidental variants: for example, the demo version of the site is accidentally left accessible to crawlers

How Google Chooses A Canonical Webpage 

Until very recently, it was unclear exactly how Google selected canonical pages. Website owners and managers could signal which version they wanted to appear in search results using the rel=”canonical” tag in the code of the page. 

However, this version wasn’t always the one that Google went with.

Gary Ilyes from Google cleared the mystery up (mostly) in a recent Google Search Central video. 

The process starts with finding the content and identifying the main content or “centerpiece of a page”. Then, it groups the pages with similar content in duplicate clusters. 

Then, Google uses a handful of pages to essentially rank each version of the page like it would a listing in search results. The page with the best ranking is selected as the canonical version and included in most search results. 

While he doesn’t list exactly what signals are used, Ilyes did say this:

“Some signals are very straightforward, such as site owner annotations in HTML like rel=”canonical”, while others, like the importance of an individual page on the internet, are less straightforward.”

Notably, this doesn’t mean that Google only indexes one version of the page to be used in all contexts. There are situations where Google may decide to show users a version of the page other than the canonical version.

“The other versions in the cluster become alternate versions that may be served in different contexts, like if the user is searching for a very specific page from the cluster.

To hear Gary Ilyes himself talk about the process, check out the full Google Search Central Video below:

It is no secret that Google knows the price you, your competitors, and even the shady third-party companies charge for your products or services. In some cases, you might even directly tell the company how much you charge through Google’s Merchant Center. So, it is reasonable to think that the search engine might also use that information when it is ranking brands or product pages in search results.

In a recent livestream, however, Google Webmaster Trends Analyst, John Mueller, denied the idea.

What John Mueller Has To Say About Price as a Google Ranking Signal

The question arose during an SEO Office-Hours hangout on October 8, which led to Mueller explaining that while Google can access this information, it does not use it when ranking traditional search results.

As he says in the recording of the discussion:

“Purely from a web search point of view, no, it’s not the case that we would try to recognize the price on a page and use that as a ranking factor.

“So it’s not the case that we would say we’ll take the cheaper one and rank that higher. I don’t think that would really make sense.”

At the same time, Mueller says he can’t speak on how products in shopping results (which may be shown in regular search results) are ranked. 

Within shopping search results, users can manually select to sort their results by price. Whether it is used as a factor the rest of the time isn’t something Mueller can answer:

“A lot of these products also end up in the product search results, which could be because you submit a feed, or maybe because we recognize the product information on these pages, and the product search results I don’t know how they’re ordered.

“It might be that they take the price into account, or things like availability, all of the other factors that kind of come in as attributes in product search.”

Price Is And Isn’t A Ranking Factor

At the end of the day, Mueller doesn’t work in the areas related to product search so he really can’t say whether price is a ranking factor within those areas of Google. This potentially includes when they are shown within normal search results pages.

What he can say for sure, is that within traditional web search results, Google does not use price to rank results:

“So, from a web search point of view, we don’t take price into account. From a product search point of view it’s possible.

“The tricky part, I think, as an SEO, is these different aspects of search are often combined in one search results page. Where you’ll see normal web results, and maybe you’ll see some product review results on the side, or maybe you’ll see some mix of that.”

You can hear Mueller’s full response in the recording from the October 8, 2021, Google SEO Office Hours hangout below: