Google Responds To Cross-Domain Canonical De-Indexing Report via @sejournal, @martinibuster
All Paid Media PPC News Social MediaAdvertising Video Advertising Columns Ask A PPC ExpertNEW PPC Pulse Webinar ChatGPT Ads Or GEO: What To Buy, What To Earn Audit where ChatGPT places your brand, then get the rule for when Ads win, when GEO wins, and when running both beats either one. Digital Marketing All Digital Marketing Analytics & Data Ecommerce Lead Generation Content Marketing Social Platforms Google YouTube Reddit LinkedIn TikTokNEW WordPress Other CMS Platforms Webinar Tactical Solutions For The Biggest AI Search Measurement Challenges Walk away with a prioritized set of AI search visibility metrics and the tactical steps to start reporting on them. SEJ Live Webinars Rundowns PodcastNEW Ebooks All Resources Webinar A New Place To Look: Where Your Next AI Citations & Clicks Come From Learn how to turn real customer language into AEO insights, FAQ content, and measurable AI citations and clicks with CallTrackingMetrics. Google's John Mueller responds to a strange de-indexing case where an unrelated website appeared to replace a site's pages in search. SEJ STAFF Roger Montti September 18, 2026 ⋅ 7 min read SEJ STAFF Roger Montti Owner - Martinibuster.com at Martinibuster.com Bio Follow 1.6K READS Google’s John Mueller responded to a question about a website that was presumed to have been de-indexed because of a cross-domain “canonical content” issue. The Redditor referenced canonical content. It’s unclear what they meant by that, but it sounds like they may have been referring to a cross-domain canonical. A cross-domain canonical is a meta tag that tells search engines that the content on one site is the same as the content on another site. It’s the multi-website version of the regular canonical meta tag that handles URLs within the same website. Google treats both meta tags as a strong hint but is not obligated to obey them. The cross-domain canonical is a way to indicate that a site was migrated from one domain name to another one, but only if a 301 redirect was absolutely not possible for whatever reason, which nowadays is not something likely to happen. Cross-domain canonicals were then put to use as a way to indicate that the original version of a syndicated page of content was on a different URL. Google’s guidance on cross-domain canonicals for syndicated content subsequently changed so that the best practice was to recommend the use of a meta no-index HTML element. “If you syndicate your articles to other news sites or other sites within your own network, they can add this robots meta tag to your articles: <meta name=”Googlebot-News” content=”noindex”> This tag stops Google News from indexing the syndicated versions of your content. To restrict syndicated content from both Google News and Google Search, other sites can add this robots meta tag to your articles: <meta name=”Googlebot” content=”noindex”> This tag stops Google’s main user-agent, Googlebot, from indexing your content.” Given that a canonical meta tag is just a hint, the reality at this point is that there is no reason to use a cross-domain canonical because there are other better alternatives to accomplishing the same thing in a more absolute manner that obligates Google to obey it, like the 3xx redirects and the meta noindex directive. Someone on Reddit posted that their site was de-indexed and, upon investigation, discovered that a casino site appeared to be canonicalized as their own site. The Redditor didn’t say how it was canonicalized as their own site because the way to do that requires a canonical meta tag on the Redditor’s site pointing to the casino site. They dropped the URL of the casino website, which I’ve changed to example.com. “We are seeing a slightly but growing de-indexing of our pages in Google by a very strange domain. For context: Our pages are about companies and suppliers, and the page that google sees as the canonical one is a casino betting page (www.example.com). There is absolutely no similarity in content between our pages and this page. Moreover when analyzing www.example.com I cannot not even find any page which goes near our content. Does anyone may has any idea what this is about and how to fix this?” Another Redditor (No_Wrap_9584) posted that a similar thing happened to them. What they discovered is that their site was showing a server error message and that other sites were also showing the exact same message and Google just lumped them together and after a few weeks it resolved by itself. “When searching the third-party canonical URL in Google Search, it appears indexed with the title: “Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information).” This is a generic JavaScript application error message. Notably, this is the same error message our own site has occasionally displayed during temporary outages when the application fails to load correctly. This makes us suspect that at some point Googlebot may have crawled an error or fallback response rather than real page content, and then treated multiple URLs showing that same error shell as duplicates. That could explain the cross-domain canonical selection and subsequent de-indexing, even though everything looks clean now.” Google’s John Mueller agreed that the Redditor’s explanation could be an option and recommended using the Search Console’s live URL checker to review how Google is rendering the web page. Mueller published a second reply with additional explanation and advice: “Ultimately I don’t think this matters (though yes, it’s confusing). The potential outcomes are basically: a) your page is seen as canonical, but indexed with the server message => your page is not showing in search for normal content b) your page is seen as a soft-404 (imo this is what we should be doing) => your page is not showing in search for normal content c) the other page is canonical => your page is not showing in search for normal content
Source: Search Engine Journal
This article has been carefully curated and reformatted for educational and informational purposes. Full credit goes to the original publisher.
📚 Visit more helpful articles on Joab Peters Blog
No comments