Intro
Google has cautioned against using "sneaky redirects" with rel=canonical tags when updating website content. This advice was highlighted during a recent episode of Google’s Search Off The Record podcast, where Search Relations team members John Mueller and Lizzi Sassman discussed managing "content decay"—the process where website content becomes obsolete over time.
During the podcast, the team addressed the practice of using redirects when updating or replacing older content. They warned against using certain redirect methods that could be perceived as misleading.
When Rel=Canonical Becomes "Sneaky"
The problematic redirect method involves the incorrect use of rel=canonical tags. This issue was discussed in the context of linking similar, but not equivalent, content. Sassman expressed a desire to connect updated content to older posts, giving the example of transforming a blog post into comprehensive documentation. She suggested using rel=canonical for this purpose.
Mueller raised concerns, stating that using rel=canonical in this way would be "sneaky" because the tags imply the content is identical, which isn't the case. He emphasized that rel=canonical should indicate equivalence between pages, allowing search engines to choose either. Misusing it as a substitute for a redirect is misleading.
Recommended Approaches
Mueller recommended two correct approaches: either use a 301 redirect to replace the old content with the new, or keep both versions if the older content still holds value. A 301 redirect signals that the old page has permanently moved to a new location, preserving link equity and minimizing negative search ranking impacts.
Why It Matters
Incorrectly using redirects or canonical tags can be seen as an attempt to manipulate search rankings, violating Google’s guidelines and potentially resulting in penalties. Adhering to Google's recommendations ensures your site remains in good standing and that visitors access the most relevant content.
Listen to the full podcast episode for more insights.
FAQ
What are the issues with using rel=canonical tags for updated content?
Using rel=canonical tags can be misleading if the old and new pages aren’t equivalent. Google’s John Mueller suggests that rel=canonical implies the pages are identical and that a search engine can choose either. Misusing it to signal a redirect when the content isn’t equivalent is seen as “sneaky” and potentially manipulative. Rel=canonical should only be used when content is truly equivalent; otherwise, a 301 redirect or maintaining both pages is recommended.
Is it acceptable to keep outdated content accessible to users?
Yes, it’s acceptable to keep outdated content accessible if it still holds value. Google’s John Mueller suggests that you can either redirect outdated content to the updated page or keep both versions live. If the older content offers valuable information or historical context, it’s worthwhile to keep it accessible along with 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 moved permanently to a new location. Additionally, it allows the transfer of link equity and minimizes negative impacts on search rankings.
