Should you fix URLs marked 'submitted URL not selected as canonical'?

What does the status 'submitted URL not selected as canonical' mean?

This message appears in Search Console when you have submitted a URL via your XML sitemap, but Google has chosen another version of that page as the canonical URL. Essentially, your page exists, has been crawled, but the algorithm has determined that a different variant deserves to be indexed instead.

There could be many reasons: chained 301/302 redirects, variable URL parameters, duplicated content across multiple versions (HTTP/HTTPS, www/non-www, trailing slash), or incorrectly configured canonical tags. Google consolidates these signals and selects what it believes to be the best version for its index.

Why does Mueller say no action is necessary?

Google's logic is that if a page is not the canonical version chosen, it means that the algorithm has already done its job of consolidation. Taking action on these URLs could create more confusion than anything else, especially if the canonical signals are consistent otherwise.

Mueller implies that this status is not a bug to fix but an indication: your URL exists in the crawl graph, has been evaluated, and Google simply preferred another version. As long as the chosen canonical version aligns with your SEO expectations, there would be no reason to panic.

When does this status become problematic?

The issue arises when Google selects as canonical a URL that you do not want indexed. For instance, if your HTTPS product page is overlooked in favor of an old HTTP version, or if a pagination URL becomes the primary version while you want the root page indexed.

Another frequent case: the chained redirects mentioned in the original title. If page A redirects to B which redirects to C, Google may choose B as canonical while you aim for C. In this scenario, doing nothing means allowing Google to make a decision you haven't validated.

• Always check which URL Google has selected as canonical in the URL inspection tool
• Compare it with your SEO intentions: is this the right version you want to rank?
• Analyze the chained redirects: each additional jump dilutes PageRank and slows crawling
• Fix inconsistencies between canonical tags, XML sitemaps, and redirects if they send conflicting signals
• Change nothing only if the chosen canonical version perfectly matches your strategy

Is this statement consistent with observed practices on the ground?

On the surface, yes. In most cases, this status indeed reflects a normal consolidation by Google and does not indicate a serious malfunction. Well-structured sites with a clean architecture rarely see this message become a real issue if the selected canonical is the correct one.

But here's the catch: Mueller generalizes a situation that sometimes hides critical configuration errors. I've seen sites lose 30% of their organic traffic because Google consistently canonicalized staging URLs or non-optimized mobile variants, and no one thought it necessary to delve into this 'normal' status. [To be verified] therefore case by case before blindly applying this recommendation.

What nuances should be added to this official position?

First point: saying 'they are not indexed' is technically true but incomplete. These URLs are known to Google, crawled, and their content is analyzed to determine the canonical. Therefore, they consume crawl budget, which is not negligible on large sites with millions of pages.

The second nuance: the chained redirects mentioned in the title are a specific case where 'doing nothing' is a strategic mistake. Each additional 301 redirect dilutes the link equity transferred and increases server response time. Allowing chains A→B→C→D to linger out of administrative laziness is accepting a measurable performance loss.

In what contexts does this rule absolutely not apply?

On e-commerce sites with dynamically managed stock, this status can obscure active product URLs that Google refuses to index in favor of categories or filters. If your profitable product listings don't rank because they are considered non-canonical, you are losing direct revenue.

Another case: multilingual or multi-regional sites with poorly configured hreflang. Google may canonicalize the EN version at the expense of the FR version you specifically target, and this status only tells you 'no big deal, it's normal'. Except that it is not normal if your SEO strategy relies on precise linguistic targeting.

What should you do in concrete terms regarding this status?

First action: identify the canonical version that Google has selected via the URL inspection tool in Search Console. Compare it with the URL you submitted in your sitemap. If they match, or if Google has chosen an equivalent version that you control, you can indeed do nothing.

Second step: track the redirects with a tool like Screaming Frog or Redirect Path. If you detect chains (A→B→C), replace them with direct redirects (A→C). This frees up crawl budget, speeds up loading time, and prevents dilution of PageRank across several hops.

What mistakes should you avoid when dealing with these URLs?

Classic error: massively deleting from the XML sitemap all URLs marked with this status, thinking you are 'cleaning' your file. You risk removing legitimate URLs that serve as crawl entry points, slowing down the discovery of new pages or updated content.

Another pitfall: forcing canonicalization via canonical tag without fixing the underlying cause (redirects, duplicated content, URL parameters). Google may ignore your directive if it contradicts other strong signals such as a 301 redirect or a poorly configured rel=alternate. You then create a signal conflict that worsens the situation.

How to check that your site is properly configured?

Audit your redirect chains: any URL in your sitemap should point directly to its final destination without intermediaries. Also check the consistency between declared canonical tags in HTML, XML sitemaps, and server redirects — these three layers must tell the same story.

Monitor your server logs to detect URLs that Googlebot frequently crawls but are never indexed. If you notice a recurring pattern on strategic pages, that’s a signal that a canonicalization issue deserves investigation, no matter what Mueller says.

• Manually inspect 10-20 URLs marked 'submitted URL not selected as canonical' to validate the canonical version chosen by Google
• Trace and correct all detected chained redirects (replace A→B→C with A→C)
• Check the consistency between HTML canonical tags, XML sitemap, and server redirects
• Audit logs to identify URLs that are crawled but never indexed despite strategic content
• Monitor the status evolution after corrections: a delay of 2-4 weeks to see the effects
• Document cases where Google continues to choose an undesired canonical for technical escalation