Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
-
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations:
http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161
http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite
http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview
Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out.
We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below.
<html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /><meta name="robots" content="noindex">
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."><script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script>head>
-
Thanks for your help, I get it now!
In addition to your video, I also found a post on Matt Cutts' blog that answers it:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/handling-legitimate-cross-domain.html
-
No, if you remove it page will not show up as canonical element indicates to google that you do not want the page it is paleced on to rank, but it is still able to pass link juice. It is like a 301 redirect, with the difference that users are still able to read the pae content on the sepcific url. Here's a video by Matt Cutts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm9onOGTgeM
-
Are you saying that I should remove the robots noindex tag altogether? If I do that, the pages with the canonical code will still show up in G, right?
If yes, Is there any alterative if I don't want that to happen?
Thanks for the help!
-
The canonical code is ok, but the with robots noindex it won't work. You cannot redirect something that is not indexed. Move robots tag and you shall be fine.
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
-
I currently have a canonical tag pointing to a different url for single page categories on eCommerce site. Is this wrong ?
Hi Mozzers, I have a query regarding canonical tags on my eCommerce site.. Basically on my category pages whereby I have more than 1 page, I currently use next/prev rel and also have a canonical tag pointing to the View all version of that page. This is believe is correct.(see example - http://goo.gl/2gz6LV However, from looking at the view source on my other pages, I have noticed I have canonical tags on all my category pages which are only a single page and these canonicaltag are pointing to a different url. I enclose an example . Please advise Category page - http://goo.gl/Pk4zYl This is where the canonical tag points to - http://goo.gl/EwKv26 Another example Category Page - http://goo.gl/4gWTdD This is where the canonical tag for that page points to http://goo.gl/qm4HV7 Should I either make sure that categories that are only 1 page , don't have a canonical tag at all ? or do I have a canonical tag on say every page on my website for safety pointing to the main url for that page. The later, I imagine would be a belt and braces approach but I don't want to screw up anything if it's not advised? Please help/ Kind regards Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Should the Title Tag and the H1 Tag not be the same or not anymore and can that be classed as over optimization?
Hi All, I am just evaluating my title tags, H1,H2's etc and wondered in light of the google algorithm changes over the last 12 months , we should look at more diversity as opposed to things possibly looking over optimized... Originally (18 months ago) my Title tags considered of 2/3 keyword phrases , then I reduced this to my keyword phrase | Brand Name but a majority of my H1's and H2's had the same keyword phrases. Historically this has served us very well and rankings for good but over the last 12 months, we were hit by panda, hummingbird etc...and which we are trying to recover from and from what I have read, the rules have changed with regards to good seo./ over optimized SEO. We have been writting unique content , making more of our links branded etc to sort things out from that perspective but on the page stuff is just as important so I would like to get this right. I am now thinking , that I may be getting penalized if my H1 and title's , H2 are the same ? and that they should be obviously related but different. H2's again , need to be related but not the same as either of the above. Is that how things should be these days ? from what I have read about this, most of the articles are not that recent so I don't what to do what is now redundant advice Any advice greatly appreciated. Thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Should you bother with an "impact links" manual action
I have a couple sites that have these, and I have done a lot of work to get them removed, but there seems to be very little if any benefit from doing this. In fact, sites were we have done nothing after these penalties seem to be doing better than ones where we have done link removal and the reconsideration request. Google says "I_f you don’t control the links pointing to your site, no action is required on your part. From Google’s perspective, the links already won’t count in ranking. However, if possible, you may wish to remove any artificial links to your site and, if you’re able to get the artificial links removed, submit a reconsideration request__. If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action._" I would guess a lot of people with this penalty don't even know they have it, and it sounds like leaving it alone really doesn't hurt your site. If seems to me that just simply ignoring this and building better links and higher quality content should help improve your site rankings vs. worrying about trying to get all these links removed/disavowed. What are your thoughts? Is it worth trying to get this manual action removed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | netviper0 -
Rel Canonical Link on the Canonical Page
Is there a problem with placing a rel=canonical link on the canonical page - in addition to the duplicate pages? For example, would that create create an endless loop where the canonical page keeps referring to itself? Two examples that are troubling me are: My home site is www.1099pro.com which is exactly the same as www.1099pro.com/index.asp (all updates to the home page are made by updating the index.asp page). I want www.1099pro.com/index.asp to have the rel=canonical link to point to my standard homepage www.1099pro.com but any update that I make on the index page is automatically incorporated into www.1099pro.com as well. I don't have access to my hosting web server and any updates I make have to be done to the specific landing pages/templates. I am also creating a new website that could possible have pages with duplicate content in the future. I would like to already include the rel=canonical link on the standard canonical page even though there is not duplicate content yet. Any help really would be appreciated. I've read a ton of articles on the subject but none really define whether or not it is ok to have the rel=canonical link on both the canonical page and the duplicate pages. The closest explanation was in a MOZ article that it was ok but the answer was fuzzy. -Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
Using "Read More" buttons as a tool to cram in Content
Hi Mozzers! Let's say our website is clean, professional, and minimalistic. Can we use a "read more" button that will expand the text on the page to increase the amount of content while (unless clicked) not impacting the appearance? I want to make sure I am not violating Google Webmaster's guidelines for "Hidden Text" Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W0 -
Facebook "lockout"
I'm not sure what the correct term is, but I've visited websites that require me to like page 1 of an article, to view page 2. Little annoying but fair enough, they wrote the content, I clearly find it of value as I want page 2. I run a download website, with user generated content. We used to only allow downloads to members, this resulted in 5,000+ new signups per day and a massive userbase. We now allow guests to download content, the majority are freeloaders, not even a thank you to the artist. I am about to employ a system for guests, that forces them to like, tweet or G+ the download, for it to begin. If they don't, no download. Are there any SEO considerations here? The page this will be implemented on, isn't a crawlable page. Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seo-wanna-bs0 -
Adding rel=next / prev to pagination that uses Ajax?
Hi I have just been informed that I should be using the rel=next / rel=prev markup on my category pages and search results pages that use pagination. How do i add these in? Is it just the simple case of adding rel=next in the<a href="" for="" item="" in="" the="" pagination?<="" p=""></a> <a href="" for="" item="" in="" the="" pagination?<="" p="">Also does this work if your are using AJAX - on page load it displays the search / category pages then uses AJAX for additional pages so there is no page refresh</a> <a href="" for="" item="" in="" the="" pagination?<="" p="">Many Thanks</a>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ocelot0 -
Canonical Tags & Search Bots
Does anyone know for sure if search engine bots still crawl links on a page whose canonical tags are set to a different page? So in short, would it be similar to a no-index follow? Thanks! -Margarita
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MargaritaS0