When it comes to outdated web content, Google has warned against using certain redirects that could be perceived as misleading to users.
The tip came during a recent episode of Google’s Search Off The Record podcast.
In the episode, Search Relations team members John Mueller and Lizzi Sassman discussed strategies for managing “content decay”: the gradual process of website content becoming obsolete over time.
During the conversation, the two Googlers addressed the practice of using redirects when replacing or updating old content.
However, they cautioned against specific redirection methods that could be seen as “funny.”
When Rel=canonical becomes “sneaky”
The redirect method that caused red flags is the incorrect use of rel=canonical tags.
This was brought up during a discussion about linking similar but not equivalent content.
Sassman stated:
“… for this case, I wish there was something I could tie these things to, because it almost seems like it would be better to redirect it.
For example, Daniel Weisberg from our team blogged about debugging traffic drops with Search Console in a blog post. And then we worked on that to turn it into documentation and added content to it. We want people to go check out the new one, and I’d like people to find it in search results as well.
So for me, like this, I don’t know why people should find the previous version, because it’s not like an ad. It was best practice information.
So why would it be better to make it like a rel=canonical situation?”
Mueller immediately raised concerns with Sassman’s proposed use of the rel=canonical tag.
Mueller responded:
“Rel=canonical would be a little sneaky because it’s not really the same… it’s not equivalent.
I always see rel=canonical as something where you tell search engines “they’re actually equivalent, and you can choose whatever you want”.
We see it as, “Well, these are equivalent, but they treat this as a redirect,” which is tricky because they say, “Ah, they say rel=canonical, but they actually mean something different.” ‘”
What to do instead
If you find yourself having to make a decision similar to Sassman’s, Mueller says this is the right approach:
“I think it redirects or it doesn’t redirect. It’s like really saying it’s replaced or retaining both.
The best way to link a page to a newer, complete page is with a redirect, not a rel=canonical.
Or you can keep them both on if you think there is still value in the previous page.
Why SEJ cares
Incorrect use of redirects or canonical tags can be seen as an attempt to manipulate search rankings, which violates Google’s guidelines and may result in penalties or reduced visibility.
Following Google’s recommendations can ensure that your site stays healthy and visitors access the most relevant content.
Listen to the full podcast episode below:
Frequently asked questions
What are the problems with using rel=canonical tags for updated content?
Using rel=canonical tags can be misleading if the old and new pages are not equivalent.
Google’s John Mueller suggests that rel=canonical implies that the pages are identical and a search engine can choose either. Using it to indicate a redirect when the content is not equivalent is seen as “stealthy” and potentially manipulative.
Rel=canonical should only be used when the content is truly equivalent; otherwise, a 301 redirect or keeping both pages is recommended.
Is it acceptable to keep outdated content accessible to users?
Yes, it is acceptable to keep outdated content accessible if it still has value. Google’s John Mueller suggests that you can either redirect the outdated content to the updated page or keep both versions of the content live.
If the previous content provides valuable information or historical context, it’s worth keeping it accessible alongside the updated version.
How should redirects be handled when updating website content?
The correct approach to handling redirects is to use a 301 redirect if the old content has been replaced or is considered obsolete.
A 301 redirect tells search engines (and visitors) that the old page has been permanently moved to a new location. It also allows you to transfer link equity and minimizes the negative impact on search rankings.
Featured image: Khosro/Shutterstock
[ad_2]
Source link
