Google’s John Mueller repeated recommendation from some time in the past that you shouldn’t change your m-dot URLs to be the canonical URL, regardless that Google is fully switched over to mobile-first indexing. He mentioned that is simply because it’s how it’s accomplished, the way it was accomplished, and switching it on Google’s finish would trigger many giant websites points.
As a reminder, Google mentioned this in 2017, “No adjustments are vital for interlinking with separate cell URLs (m.-dot websites). For websites utilizing separate cell URLs, maintain the present hyperlink rel=canonical and hyperlink rel=alternate components between these variations.”
John repeated this saying on LinkedIn, “Since Google indexes the cell URL as a substitute of the desktop one, ought to websites with m-dot URLs change to canonicalize to the cell model now? Tl;dr: no, do not change it.”
He then defined why – briefly, as a result of it was accomplished the opposite manner perpetually, altering it, would trigger some actually giant websites a whole lot of points:
It may make sense: if Google is selecting the cell URL as canonical, should not the location try this too? (Once more: do not.) First off, when you have the time and use separate cell URLs, then I might counsel working in the direction of a responsive design: utilizing the identical URLs makes issues a lot simpler, even when it is only for some elements.
If we began from scratch, canonicalizing and indexing the cell model could be affordable. Nevertheless, *switching* canonicals may be very onerous, you would not be capable of belief any canonical hyperlinks for a very long time (some are Cell->Desktop, some Desktop->Cell), there would should be a brand new “hyperlink rel alternate desktop”, and all serps must modify. So, simply maintain it as-is (canonical means they’re equal anyway), or take steps towards a responsive design.
FWIW by “canonicals” I imply the “hyperlink rel=canonical href=URL” components in HTML or in HTTP response headers. Picture unrelated, however technical search engine marketing = gears, proper?
When he was requested why websites aren’t doing this proper? He mentioned, “I hope there are only a few new websites doing this, however altering the infrastructure in larger websites (like Fb or YouTube, who I believe each use m-dot) has received to be a lot tougher than me doing posts right here.”
John additionally added this concerning the range header within the feedback – which really was one thing I did not know totally:
And a random anecdote – whereas checking this with the cell indexing staff, we realized that Google would not use the “range” HTTP headers in any respect for understanding the cell/desktop relationship. These are pointless for search engine marketing (and we’ll make {that a} bit clearer within the documentation). They’re purely for usability, to assist with any HTTP caches. You need not take away them, they’re simply not an “search engine marketing factor”.
Discussion board dialogue at LinkedIn.
