Welcome to the Q&A Forum

That sounds like you could have a soft redirect issue of some kind. If the 'actual' redirects 'strip' the trailing slash, but the then non-trailing slash URLs canonical back to the trailing slash versions (which again redirect to remove the slash) then that's known as a soft redirect loop and yes it can adversely  affect SEO performance So let's have a look, using this URL as an example: https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/camping-tents-other-brands Status Code (200 OK) - but canonical tag is like: So when you visit that URL with the trailing slash... It does NOT 301 to remove the slash, so no you are not caught in a soft redirect loop and that is not the issue. However, be that as it may, having ALL the hyperlinks point to 'non-/' and then all the canonicals point to 'trailling-/', could be very confusing for Google. Does it go with the canonical URL, or the URL with the most links which is also a signal of, what page is legit? I would still get it seen to

We agree with Gaston. Our experience is that it almost is never worth the time to change URL structures on an established site. Instead, focus time and effort on creating more and better content, adding more internal links, and doing legit link building. For example, we looked at this blog post, https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/blog/chasebaits-lure-range/, where you highlight four separate lures but you only link to one of the product pages instead of all four. Furthermore, you linked only once using a "Shop Now" button. We'd recommend adding another link to that product page linking the text of the name of the product somewhere above the "Shop Now" button within the content talking about that specific lure.

Thanks that is what i suspected. Very helpful, many thanks.

It appears the site has been impacted up by the medic update on 5 August 2018.  Review data and check when the decline spiral started. In answer to your query Schema has a massive impact on some sites, not sure where your site fits into the schema discussion - but properly executed in the correct circumstance schema is only beneficial. It would have to be a technical audit on why the wrong pricing.. as a .com.au with an Australian based platform.. should be coming up in AUD..

From my understanding of mobile-first indexing, your mobile site will become the primary version Google crawlers see when they are looking at your website. So in terms of the impact of hiding the breadcrumbs on your mobile site, Google will see that you've hidden them and may or may not see them on the desktop version because they may or may not bother to crawl the desktop version. My question to you would be - what value are you seeing from the breadcrumbs on desktop? Can you check your analytics data to see whether users are using these breadcrumbs for navigation? Do you mark up your breadcrumbs with schema to allow them to show up in rich snippets? If the breadcrumbs do not currently add much value to your users and if they don't serve an SEO purpose, you may not need to bother including them on mobile. On the other hand, if you know that they add to a better UX, you may see a benefit from adding them to the mobile version of the site. This is because Google likes to reward sites with a better UX for mobile users. If you are using them more for search engines to have easier crawl access, I would suggest revisiting your site structure more broadly to ensure that no important page is further than 3-4 clicks from the homepage; and/or ensure that you keep your sitemaps up to date with all important pages and submit in GSC and BWT.

Thanks for your advise..  That  clears up the mis-conception for me since i would have thought the content actually stays the same other than the products shown.    we're having some minor dramas with some parameters being indexed despite having parameters configured in search console. hence i was wondering if the canonical setup was something to do with it.   I'm thinking i try and look into no-index follow system instead for paginated series.