Canonical Tag - Question
-
Hey,
I will give a thumbs up and best answer to whoever answers my question correctly.
The Canonical Tag is supposed to solve Duplication which is fine.
My questions are:
-
Does the Canonical Tag make the PR / Link Juice flow differently? If I have john.long.com/home and john.long.com but put a Canonical Tag on john.long.com/home reading john.long.com then what does this do? Does it flow the Link Equity back to john.long.com?
-
Can you use the Canonical Tag to change PR flow in any means? If I had john.long.com/washing-machines and john.long.com/kids-toys...
If I put a Canonical Tag on john.long.com/kids-toys reading john.long.com/washing-machines then would the PR from /kids-toys flow to /washing-machines or would Google just ignore this? (The pages are completely different in this example and content is completely different).
Thank you.
-
-
Yannick is correct.
Bing for example will lose trust in your site and start to ignore your tags if you are not honest.
Bing has also stated that a canonical is much like a 301, only it leaves the useer on the page, it does not redirect. So yes it will leak a bit of link juice.
Read the link yannick supplied, it explains it all.
-
"Would Google just ignore these"
The canonical tag is merely a reference for Google, and any other crawlers that respect this tag, and in no way does Google have to honour it. I'm quite certain if your canonical tag reference was different than the actual URL in question over a large chunk of your site, Google might start to think something is up.
The canonical tag works like a 301 header redirect. So, it will pass some juice, but not 100% of the PR juice.
I could go on more, but there are several answers below that have already pointed out some great points.
-
To answer this questions needed to understand why google have implement "canonical" tag.
Before, to determine is content duplicated or not. Google bot downloaded page content and via complex algorithm compare it with other page in index. As i think there are special bot running through indexed pages database and searching duplicates (that's why copy-paste sites take ban not right after indexation but in some time after).
Tag "Canonical" make this task more easier, Google bot don't need to download page with duplicate content, just need to check section, and may be hash or something like "hashsumm" for . So there are no necessity to download and store same data few times(delete stored data is hard for high-load data centers). It's more effective and fast way to crawl large data sets like web. Also link and url related data, i think, should be added to primary page data set.
I've made a test on this, Google download much less data if the page has rel="canonical" to other page, compare to primary page.
So according this answers for your questions are:
1. Link just flow as usual's, all link data for duplicated pages merge with data for primary page. So PR may slightly decrease in some cases,by the way if you have links from same pages to both primary and duplicated pages. But impact is not critical, almost similar to 301.
2. No, because Google bot check not only canonical. About this i have one more point, Google is statistical SE, and rate pages on topics, so in you case even if canonical will added to pages, it will not help you rank better for both terms.
-
1. I think a canonical loses a similar amount of link juice as a 301 redirect would, so 100% of the juice would not flow back to john.long.com
2. If Google sees the canonical link is different to the content of the page it is on, Google will ignore it - Matt Cutts has said as much.
Check this out: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/rel-canonical-html-head/
-
-
Thanks for your reply Yannick. It's much appreciated.
I don't find you very convincing though.
I'll give you a thumbs up but I need somebody else to answer please.
-
In my opinion, if you are pointing to a page as a canonical and the page you are pointing to is not a copy of the page the tag is on, you'll be sending strange signals to SE's and they will ignore it. Worst case they will penalize you. (But I dont think they do that)
-
But my question is and what I'm trying to understand is that - IF it does flow Link Equity like you said it does, then what is to stop somebody putting Canonical Tags into Internal Pages pointing back to their Homepage to channel Link Equity from Internal Pages back to their Homepage for example????? Would Google just ignore these or penalise you because will Google know that the content isn't the same?
-
1. In my understanding: it flows link equity back to john.long.com if it is a copy of /home.
2. It's not as simple as that. Try not to compare a canonical to a 301. rel canonical tells SE's that there is a copy of the page somewhere else. So putting a rel canonical on the kids toys to the washing machines will do nothing for your rankings. They are not copies of eachother.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
301 Question - issue
A while back we had a 'bleed' on one of our sites, which basically meant one of our sites started to leak across pages to another and that site started to rank for the same pages and now we have hundreds of pages ranking for urls that do not exists. It's hard to explain, bare with me. If you were to click on the cached view in Google for the ranked page it would show you the main site, but if you were to click it as usual, then you would be taken to the site but a 404 would show as the intended page was not for that site. We believe we fixed the 'bleed' and have setup 301s for all the affected pages to go to the home page for the site it affected. But these pages have not been removed from Google, which we thought a 301 would do. So we still have hundreds of pages being ranked but are redirected to the home page. Why hasn't these pages been removed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JH_OffLimits0 -
Canonical questions
Hi, We are working on a site that sells lots of variations of a certain type of product. (Car accessories) So lets say there are 5 products but each product will need a page for each car model so we will potentially have a lot of variations/pages. As there are a lot of car models, these pages will have pretty much the same content, apart from the heading and model details. So the structure will be something like this; Product 1 (landing page) Audi (model selection page)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davidmaxwell
---Audi A1 (Model detail page)
---Audi A2 (Model detail page)
---Audi A3 (Model detail page) BMW (model selection page)
---BMW 1 Series (Model detail page)
---BMW 3 Series (Model detail page) Product 2 (landing page) Audi (model selection page)
---Audi A1 (Model detail page)
---Audi A2 (Model detail page)
---Audi A3 (Model detail page) BMW (model selection page)
etc
etc The structure is like this as we will be targeting each landing page for AdWords campaigns. As all of these pages could look very similar to search engines, will simply setting up each with a canonical be enough? Is there anything else we should do to ensure Google doesn't penalise for duplicate page content? Any thoughts or suggestions most welcome.
Thanks!0 -
Pagination, Canonical Tag & Best Practices
I have an eCommerce site that dynamically creates category pages, which produce canonical tags in the header. For multiple page categories, it adds the page number to the URL. For example, this category has 3 pages.... Because most categories have too many products, I can't follow Googles suggestion of creating a "view all" page. Furthermore since all these pages use the same template, I'm unable to insert a NOINDEX tag in all the pages after the first page. Also, in this scenario, I'm unable to insert the discreet code for Next/Previous, which is also suggested by Google. My only option for maintaining these dynamically generated category pages would be to hardcode the first conical tag in the template, which would then be produced on all subsequent paginated pages. Consequently, every paginated page in this category would have the same canonical tag pointing to the first page. Would this incur the wrath of Google and would I'd be better off leaving the pagination they way it is?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alrockn0 -
Rel=Canonical=CONFUSED
Hey, I am a confused canonical and here's why - please help! I have a master website called www.1099pro.com and then many other websites that simply duplicate the material on the master site (i.e www.1099A.com, www.1099T.com, www.1099solution.com, and the list goes on). These other domains & pages have been around for long enough that they have been able to garner some page authority & domain authority that it makes it worthwhile to redirect them to their corresponding pages on www.1099pro.com. The problem is two-fold when trying to pass this link-juice: I do not have access to the web-service that hosts the other sites/domains and cannot 301 redirect them The other sites/domains are setup so that whatever changes I make to www.1099pro.com are automatically distributed across all the other sites. This means that when I put on www.1099pro.com it also shows up on all the other domains. It is my understanding that having on a site such as www.1099solution.com does not pass any link juice and actually eliminates that page from the search results. Is there any way that I can pass the link juice?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
Duplicate Content Question
We are getting ready to release an integration with another product for our app. We would like to add a landing page specifically for this integration. We would also like it to be very similar to our current home page. However, if we do this and use a lot of the same content, will this hurt our SEO due to duplicate content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NathanGilmore0 -
Does rel canonical need to be absolute?
Hi guys and gals, Our CMS has just been updated to its latest version which finally adds support for rel=canonical. HUZZAH!!! However, it doesn't add the absolute URL of the page. There is a base ref tag which looks like <base <="" span="">href="http://shop.confetti.co.uk/" /> On a page such as http://shop.confetti.co.uk/branch/wedding-favours the canonical tag looks like rel="canonical" href="/branch/wedding-favours" /> Does Google recognise this as a legitimate canonical tag? The SEOmoz On-Page Report Card doesn't recognise it as such. Any help would be great, Thanks in advance, Brendan.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Confetti_Wedding0 -
Should I be using rel canonical here?
I am reorganizing the data on my informational site in a drilldown menu. So, here's an example. One the home page are several different items. Let's say you clicked on "Back Problems". Then, you would get a menu that says: Disc problems, Pain relief, paralysis issues, see all back articles. Each of those pages will have a list of articles that suit. Some articles will appear on more than one page. Should I be worried about these pages being partially duplicates of each other? Should I use rel-canonical to make the root page for each section the one that is indexed. I'm thinking no, because I think it would be good to have all of these pages indexed. But then, that's why I'm asking!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarieHaynes0 -
Is having a canonical tag for the link that IS the canonical a negative thing?
Throughout our site, canonical tags have been added where needed. However, the canonical tags are also included for the canonical itself. For example, for www.askaquestion.com, the canonical tag has been added as www.askaquestion.com. Will this have a negative impact or does it not really matter whether there is such a loop?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kbbseo0