If Hreflang markup & rel=canonical are implemented for international sites, is On-page SEO necessary for duplicate content pages?

[SEOdub]

This post is deleted!

[john4math]

I think the norm now is to not use rel=canonical when using rel=alternate hreflang tags (see here or here).  The reason being that rel=canonical is telling the search bots that only the canonical version should be included in any SERPs, and the rel=alternate markup is trying to tell it which versions should appear in which SERPs.  Ideally, you can just use the rel=alternate markup, and this will help the bots consolidate the signals properly across the various international pages.

Also, you can set a default version for each page (see here).

[SEOdub]

Thanks John,

On the page https://sites.google.com/site/webmasterhelpforum/en/faq-internationalisation#q20, the second part of the answer says "Using it within the same language/country version is fine and one of the recommended ways of handling canonicalization."

I think that for same language sites with duplicate content in different countries rel=canonical can be used, but it seems you will then use the source page's title and meta-D in the search results.  I am curious as to the impact rel=canonical might actually have if implemented correctly (on authority and other metrics), Google looks like they removed the recommendation because too many people were doing incorrectly.

Think we'll start with hreflang only and see, then consider adding rel=canonical later if needed.

Thanks!

[FedeEinhorn]

A question tho, why do you need different versions for each Country if the content is actually the same? I would agree if at least the language changed, but with the same lang and content, what's the purpose?

[SEOdub]

My client has their site in 13 languages with offices in each country, I came in to do the SEO after the site was built so didn't help with the design at all.  The main category pages are mostly the same in US/UK/AU but not completely, they link to different solutions (inner pages).

One reason would be to enable us to target local keyword variations of each duplicate page, ideally we are not just using the exact keywords as traffic fluctuates regionally.  That is what were trying to accomplish.

I think hreflang with no rel=canonical seems to be the best logical step, if the content is even slightly different rel=canonical may be a bad idea.

_https://plus.google.com/107360801496590056394/posts/SpSnNfv3f1a_

John Mueller (Google): If the URLs are really fully equivalent, then using a rel=canonical like that is fine (eg if you have an informational page on a site, which doesn't mention local currencies or local addresses). On the other hand, if the pages are not fully equivalent (eg different titles, currencies, addresses, etc), then I would not use a rel=canonical. The difference is very subtle and because of that, hard to implement at scale.

_https://plus.google.com/107360801496590056394/posts/SpSnNfv3f1a_

[FedeEinhorn]

Gotcha!

I thought it was only for those 4 Countries, and the content was exactly the same for all of them.

[Vahe.Arabian]

John is correct. Cannonical tags aren't necessary as it helps consolidate signals. Therefore to answer your question, implementing HREF lang tags will result the current page ultimately replaced with the appropriate country level page. However this does not mean you shouldn't stop to optimise and bring a local flavour to your content, because you are still competing against other websites and keyword research trends might vary also. Your effort wouldn't be as great, but I still suggest you do on-page.

Finally make sure that the HREF lang tag is consistently and in the same manner on all sites and includes all country level pages. A mistake I have made in the past is just putting it on the AU for example, however the global site still existed in the AU SERP's.

Hope this helps and good luck with your efforts.

Regards,

Vahe