<\/p>\n
When it comes to outdated web content, Google has warned against using certain redirects that could be perceived as misleading to users.<\/p>\n
The tip came during a recent episode of Google’s Search Off The Record podcast.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
During the conversation, the two Googlers addressed the practice of using redirects when replacing or updating old content.<\/p>\n
However, they cautioned against specific redirection methods that could be seen as “funny.”<\/p>\n
The redirect method that caused red flags is the incorrect use of rel=canonical tags.<\/p>\n
This was brought up during a discussion about linking similar but not equivalent content.<\/p>\n
Sassman stated:<\/p>\n
“… 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
So why would it be better to make it like a rel=canonical situation?\u201d<\/p>\n
Mueller immediately raised concerns with Sassman’s proposed use of the rel=canonical tag.<\/p>\n
Mueller responded:<\/p>\n
\u201cRel=canonical would be a little sneaky because it’s not really the same\u2026 it’s not equivalent.<\/p>\n
I always see rel=canonical as something where you tell search engines “they’re actually equivalent, and you can choose whatever you want”.<\/p>\n
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.” ‘”<\/p>\n
If you find yourself having to make a decision similar to Sassman’s, Mueller says this is the right approach:<\/p>\n
“I think it redirects or it doesn’t redirect. It’s like really saying it’s replaced or retaining both.<\/p>\n
The best way to link a page to a newer, complete page is with a redirect, not a rel=canonical.<\/p>\n
Or you can keep them both on if you think there is still value in the previous page.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Following Google’s recommendations can ensure that your site stays healthy and visitors access the most relevant content.<\/p>\n
Listen to the full podcast episode below:<\/p>\n