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
-
Copied Content - Define Canonical
Hello, The Story I am working on a news organization. Our website is the https://www.neakriti.gr My question regards copied content with source references. Sometimes a small portion of our content is based on some third article that is posted on some site (that is about 1% of our content). We always put "source" reference if that is the case. This is inevitable as "news" is something that sometimes has sources on other news sites, especially if there is something you cannot verify or don't have immediate sources, and therefore you need to state that "according to this source, something has happened". Here is one article of ours that has a source from another site: https://www.neakriti.gr/article/ellada-nea/1503363/nekros-vrethike-o-agnooumenos-arhimandritis-stin-lakonia/ if you open the above article you will see we have a link to the equivalent article of the original source site http://lakonikos.gr/epikairothta/item/133664-nekros-entopistike-o-arximandritis-p-andreas-bolovinos-synexis-enimerosi Now here is my question. I have read in other MOZ forum articles that a "canonical" approach solves this issue... How can we be legit when it comes to duplicate content in the eyes of search engines? Should we use some kind of canonical link to the source site? Should the "canonical" be inside the link in some way? Should it be on our section? Our site has AMP equivalent pages (if you add the /amp keyword at the end of the article URL). Our AMP pages have canonical to our original article. So if we have a "canonical" approach how would the AMP be effected as well? Also by applying a possible canonical solution to the source URL, does that "canonical" effect our article as not being shown in search results, thus passing all indexing to the canonical site? (I know that canonical indicates what URL is to be indexed). Additionally, does such a canonical indication make us legit in such a case in the eyes of search engines? (i.e. it eliminates any possible article duplication for original content in the eyes of search engines?). Or simply put, having a simple link to the original article (as we have it now) is enough for the search engines to understand that we have reference to original article URL? How would we approach this problem in our site based on its current structure?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ioannisanif0 -
Robots.txt question
I notice something weird in Google robots. txt tester I have this line Disallow: display= in my robots.text but whatever URL I give to test it says blocked and shows this line in robots.text for example this line is to block pages like http://www.abc.com/lamps/floorlamps?display=table but if I test http://www.abc.com/lamps/floorlamps or any page it shows as blocked due to Disallow: display= am I doing something wrong or Google is just acting strange? I don't think pages with no display= are blocked in real.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rbai0 -
Rel=prev/next and canonical tags on paginated pages?
Hi there, I'm using rel="prev" and rel="next" on paginated category pages. On 1st page I'm also setting a canonical tag, since that page happens to get hits to an URL with parameters. The site also uses mobile version of pages on a subdomain. Here's what markup the 1st desktop page has: Here's what markup the 2nd desktop page has: Here's what markup the 1st MOBILE page has: Here's what markup the 2nd MOBILE page has: Questions: 1. On desktop pages starting from page 2 to page X, if these pages get traffic to their versions with parameters, will I'll have duplicate issues or the canonical tag on 1st page makes me safe? 2. Should I use canonical tags on mobile pages starting from page 2 to page X? Are there any better solutions of avoiding duplicate content issues?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | poiseo1 -
Appropriate Use of Canonical Tag
Hello, I am creating study guides for books with tabbed elements for each study guide. For example, for Othello, I'd have 3 tabs like so: 1. Overview page = xyz.com/othello 2. Context = xyz.com/othello/context 3. Characters = xyz.com/othello/characters I noticed that YouTube channels have tabbed elements and use the canonical. For example, all of the tabbed sections on https://www.youtube.com/user/Nerdist/channels have this canonical http://www.youtube.com/user/Nerdist"> In my case, would it be a correct use of the canonical tag to include rel="canonical" href = http://xyz.com/othello on each of the tabbed pages? Also, where exactly in the header should the canonical be placed? Before or after open graph / twitter cards?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stageagent0 -
H2 Tag Backlink - is this safe?
I have found that my site is getting a link from a good site, but my concern is that the link is in a H2 tag in the footer of the front page of the site Would getting a link from a site wrapped in H2 tags be safe? The anchor is my sites brand name
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnPeters0 -
SEOMOZ Diagram question
Hi, On this SEOMOZ help page (http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/internal-link) the diagram explaining the optimal link structure (image also attached) has me a little confused. From the homepage, if the bot crawls down the right-hand link first, will it not just hit a dead end where it cant crawl any further and disappear? OR... will it hit the end of the structure and then crawl backwards to the homepage again and follow down another link and then just repeat the process until all pages are indexed? Cheers pyramid.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | activitysuper0 -
Any penalty for having rel=canonical tags on every page?
For some reason every webpage of our website (www.nathosp.com) has a rel=canonical tag. I'm not sure why the previous SEO manager did this, but we don't have any duplicate content that would require a canonical tag. Should I remove these tags? And if so, what's the advantage - or disadvantage of leaving them in place? Thank you in advance for your help. -Josh Fulfer
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mhans1 -
Architecture questions.
I have two architecture related questions. Fewer folders is better. For example, www.site.com/product should rank better than www.site.com/foldera/folderb/product, all else constant. However, to what extreme does it make sense to remove folders? With a small site of 100 or so pages, why not put all files in the main directory? You'd have to manually build the navigation versus tying navigation to folder structure, but would the benefit justify the additional effort on a small site? I see a lot of sites with expansive footer menus on the home page and sometimes on every page. I can see how that would help indexing and user experience by making every page a click or two apart. However, what does that do to the flow of link juice? Does Google degrade the value of internal footer links like they do external footer links? If Google does degrade internal footer links, then having a bunch of footer links would waste link juice by sending a large portion of juice through degraded links, wouldn't it? Thank you in advance, -Derek
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dvansant0