[Explained] No correct canonical and base urls after filtering

ggppdk wrote: Hello

Fixed it, please re-update to v3.3.x-stable branch

Yes, now it's opens ok.
But canonical URL still displays without filtering.

Hello

implementation of this and the 2 new parameters that control it
are not yet at online repository

thinking if 1 parameter should be used and what the defaults should be

Maximum number of filters
Parameter: Used in canonical URLs
Parameter: Search engine indexable

ggppdk wrote: Hello

implementation of this and the 2 new parameters that control it
are not yet at online repository

thinking if 1 parameter should be used and what the defaults should be

Maximum number of filters
Parameter: Used in canonical URLs
Parameter: Search engine indexable

Hello!

You can add 3 parameters.

Maximum number of filters - 1,2,3
Used in canonical URLs - Yes, No
Search engine indexable - Yes, No

I know, that big sites, directories, markets expand the semantic nucleus with medium frequency queries using filtering and tags.

So, if we have category "Toys" we can get more traffic with phrazes like "Toys for boys", "Toys for girls", "Toys for kids".

To get this - we use tags and filters. So, this pages should be indexable and should have own canonical URLs.

Hello

please note that "text search text" is 1 filter
so if you have any phrase in it , it will be counted as 1 active filter


Now my question is
- if we reach a "max" level of filters then

e.g. 3

- then we stop adding rel-canonical and we also instruct engines not to index with no-index
- or we stop adding rel-canonical and allow index ? (because if we continue allowing index then it makes no sense to skip adding rel-canonical, right ?)

ggppdk wrote: Hello

please note that "text search text" is 1 filter
so if you have any phrase in it , it will be counted as 1 active filter

Now my question is
- if we reach a "max" level of filters then

e.g. 3

- then we stop adding rel-canonical and we also instruct engines not to index with no-index
- or we stop adding rel-canonical and allow index ? (because if we continue allowing index then it makes no sense to skip adding rel-canonical, right ?)

Hello!

As for me, I think that we just should have option to add rel-canonical and allow index for all filtering levels (without maximum number of filters).

So, we need 1 parameter

Use filters in canonical URLs and of course it should be indexable.

So, if site developer do not need filters in canonical URLs - so he disable it.

But if site developer NEED filters in canonical URLs - so, allow any levels of filters in canonical URLs.

I already explained above - filters is awesome tool to expand the semantic nucleus for search engines.
But search engines should have instructions to index that pages.

What do you think?

P.S. May be it will be more correct to add parameter for each field - Add filter for this field in canonical URL.
But this is too complicated and it will take a long time.

On the other hand, it would be more fine-tuning how many and which fields should be in the canonical URLs.

But I agree on just 1 parameter - Add filters in canonical urls.

Hello

added a single parameter for both

- A max active filters parameter for both (search-engine) indexing and adding rel-canonical