So, years ago now, Google decided that links were likely the most valuable asset to it’s algorithm. As this fact became known and people changed the way they proceeded with SEO and link building, Google took a stance and released a bit of HTML that is still controversial but holding ground yet today. I am of course referring to rel=”nofollow”.
Now, this article is not about that. If you want to read about Google and NoFollow I heartedly encourage you to read just about everything Andy Beard has had to say on the subject. No, this article tackles Google’s tactics and reasoning behind their NoFollow stance and the similarities between that move and their latest: a new way to combat duplicate content.
Google vs. Duplicate Content
According to the Google Webmaster Central blogpost: “Specify your canonical” the official Google recommendation for dealing with canonical issues is to place <link rel=”canonical” href=”http://www.example.com/index.html” /> inside the <head> section of your website. This will tell Google what the preferred version of your URL is.
Hold up! What is a canonical issue and why does it matter?
Well in the simplest of terms, depending on your site and server configuration, your URL may be accessible in different ways. For example:
- www.example.com
- example.com/
- www.example.com/index.html
- example.com/home.asp
Most casual web users would type any of these into their browser and see the same thing and think that they are the same thing. The fact that this same content could reside at 4 different URL’s however means that it’s possible for a search engine to see each one as it’s own thing and then you have the same content, showing on 4 different URL’s and instantly you have duplicate content issues. The spiders don’t know what’s what, no one knows which URL they should be at and you end up potentially lessening the importance of each of these.
If you would like a full write-up of canonical issues and how to deal with them, please read Matt Cutt’s SEO Advice: URL Canonicalization.
Awesome! Who cares? I’ll just throw rel=”canonical” in my header and now I don’t have to worry about canonical issues! Oh, and by the way, what does this have to do with that ‘NoFollow’ crap you were talking about?
Well this matters because, believe it or not, Google is NOT the only search engine out there, nor the only one that matters. So despite you just ‘throwing this in your header’ and forgetting about it, it doesn’t solve the issue for at least 1/3 of the web traffic your site receives. That might not matter to you and if that’s the case I will completely be amicable to accepting 1/3 of your paycheck from here on out. I mean, what does that matter right? You won’t miss it and since “I just bought a house!” I could use the extra scratch. Plus, when was the last time you shopped at Woolworths? Just Sayin’.
Most importantly though, this shows the chink in Google’s armor. That’s right, this search engine that you know and love is not bulletproof. Back when it didn’t know how to deal with people trying to gain popularity in it’s SERP’s by utilizing it’s relevance on links, it didn’t fix its algorithm. No, it placed the responsibility of correcting it’s algorithmic deficiencies with you, the end user. And when you didn’t conform or sought to work around it’s inadequacies, it punished you by slapping your PageRank or worse.
First it was ‘NoFollow’ that the Google algorithm couldn’t handle. Now it’s duplicate content. Once again, Google and it’s almighty algorithm can’t decipher what’s the real content vs what’s the duplicate. Hip website owners will have already corrected this for all search engines through readily available server-side means such as .htaccess and the like. Less savvy web fav will continue to suffer, most unknowingly, and once again the backs of the site owners must be burdened with carrying the patchwork for a faultering algorithm.
My advice? Read up on correcting canonical issues across the board and ignore this latest round of Google’s inability to fulfill their role as the savior of the internet.
Image by Sam UL via Flickr
