Domaim.com/jobs?location=10 is indexed, so is domain.com/jobs/sheffield

[jasondexter]

Whats the best way you'd tackle that problem? I'm inheriting a website and the old devs had multiple internal links pointing to domain.com/jobs?location=10 (plus a ton of other numbers assigned to locations) and so they've been indexed.

I usually use WMTs parameter tool but I'm not sure what the best approach would be other than that.

Any help would be appreciated!

[rikano]

Hi,

Well it all depends on your needs; here is a quick breakdown:

1. if you want these pages (domain.com/jobs?location=10) to remain accessible, but not crawlable, you can just use the rel cannonical in header (for those specific pages only) and point it to: domain.com/

----> you will lose some linkc juice here

2. if you dont need those pages to be accessible anymore, just redirect them (301 rediects) using header locations php code (no htaccess as it's a little tricky to do with rls with partameters)

----> You will preserve 90% of link juice here.

Hope it helps

[AlanMosley]

Best idea is to fix the links so that they point to the correct url, then 301 the unwanted url to the good url.

If you simply use a 301 or a canonical you will be losing link juice on the redirect

[JaneCopland]

Hi,

To echo the comments above: you need to fix this by either:

1. Using the canonical tag on domain.com/jobs?location=10, pointing to domain.com/jobs/sheffield, or;

2. 301 redirect domain.com/jobs?location=10 to domains.com/jobs/sheffield

(... and repeat with all the other instances where this has happened.)

The first method means that both pages will remain live, but Google will de-index the /jobs?location=10 page and credit the /jobs/sheffield/ page with a sizeable amount of that page's authority. The second method means that /jobs?location=10 will be inaccessible and will fall out of Google's index, to be replaced by /jobs/sheffield/. The /jobs/sheffield/ page will retain a sizeable amount of the other page's authority with this method as well.

[rikano]

Well explained @Jane , that's what i tried to say. But u made it simpler to understand for newbies. Good