TS11URLs and canonicals
URLs and canonicalsDo duplicates converge on the right reference?
Genuine duplicate variants converge without hiding distinct pages.
Prepare evidence
- In the app
- Evidence import
- You provide
- Variants and reference URL
- Allow for
- Depends on evidence needed
In the app
Allow forUnderstand
Similar pages. Really identical?
Genuine duplicate variants converge without hiding distinct pages.
According to Google
Canonicalization applies to duplicate or very similar pages. A declared preference does not guarantee Google’s final canonical selection.
Check
Compare the pages. Beyond the URL.
In TSEP Control
You import evidence for this control. The engine assesses it within the declared scope; missing items remain visible.
Your contribution
Define the scope and expectations before collection. Gather the items below and supply the requested reviews.
With your own tools
With your own toolsGroup variants thought to be equivalent. Compare their main content and canonical signals, then justify the chosen reference for each group.
Evidence to retain
Documented mapping between each duplicate and its relevant canonical.
What this result covers
Computed similarity does not replace an editorial decision.
Act
Merge duplicates. Keep the differences.
Connect true duplicates to a relevant reference; retain pages with distinct content.
Recheck
Variants change. Compare them again.
After correction, gather new evidence with the same scope and expectations. Retain both dated observations to compare what changed.
To go further.
Statuses, sources and method.
Understand the statusesC · NC · NT · NA
The same legend in guides, analysis and demo. Each status depends on the control’s evidence and rules.
- C · Verified
- The criterion is met within the assessed scope. Keep dated evidence for the next comparison.
- NC · To correct
- Connect true duplicates to a relevant reference; retain pages with distinct content.
- NT · Not established
- Evidence or confirmations are insufficient to conclude. Supply what is missing; this status does not establish an SEO error.
- NA · Not applicable
- The control does not apply to the scope under its rules, with a retained justification. Missing evidence alone does not make it non-applicable.
Sources and references1 reference
Detailed method and rules2 rules
Control method and criteria
Method
Sample parameters, pagination, filters and print versions; compare content and canonicals.
Acceptance criteria
Each mapping is justified by content comparison; no tested distinct page is unintentionally consolidated.
Non-applicability
No variants or duplication identified after a documented inventory.
Detailed rules
TS11-A01 · Editorial comparison of variants
Protocol assessment mode : manual. App availability is shown on the control card.
Scope
Explicitly selected TS11 items; url-policy-v1 profile defined in docs/url-policy-evidence.md.
Evidence
Prior plan, original bytes and SHA-256, dates/context, atomic observations, reasoned human review bound to the entire dossier. Kinds: http, html, content, intent.
Method
For each declared duplicate or distinct pair, read both complete UTF-8 HTML responses and retain fingerprints. Require a bound comparative review including source-scope sufficiency.
Acceptance criteria
Both contents are available and the supplied editorial review supports the declared relation. Contradictory review fails; text equality or similarity never supplies that review.
When the result remains inconclusive
Missing content, unsupported HTML, render-dependent comparison or missing judgment: inconclusive.
Non-applicability
No atomic exemption in this profile. Empty population or absent evidence: NT, never automatic NA.
Assumptions
Supplied population and provenance; review assumes scope sufficiency and business judgment. Content, imported verdicts or hashes never prove authenticity.
Limitations
Bounded offline reading, without collection, browser execution, generated human judgment or real audit. Reviewed source scope only; no site completeness, indexing, ranking or causality inferred.
TS11-A02 · Convergence without absorbing distinct pages
Protocol assessment mode : assisted, with supplied evidence and declarations. App availability is shown on the control card.
Scope
Explicitly selected TS11 items; url-policy-v1 profile defined in docs/url-policy-evidence.md.
Evidence
Prior plan, original bytes and SHA-256, dates/context, atomic observations, reasoned human review bound to the entire dossier. Kinds: http, html, content, intent.
Method
Read HTTP and HTML canonicals separately for both members. A duplicate points to the preference; a distinct page points to itself. Require review of the decision and source scope.
Acceptance criteria
Every qualified declaration agrees with the prior editorial relation; a conflicting declaration fails even if another surface is unavailable.
When the result remains inconclusive
No explicit canonical, uninterpretable source or required rendering unavailable: inconclusive, without inferring engine selection.
Non-applicability
No atomic exemption in this profile. Empty population or absent evidence: NT, never automatic NA.
Assumptions
Supplied population and provenance; review assumes scope sufficiency and business judgment. Content, imported verdicts or hashes never prove authenticity.
Limitations
Bounded offline reading, without collection, browser execution, generated human judgment or real audit. Reviewed source scope only; no site completeness, indexing, ranking or causality inferred.
Rule version 0.3.0-draft.2 · Public protocol reference · Versioned source
Put it into practice
A family of variants and its reference.