On page audit throws a rel="canonical" curve ball :-(
-
Good Morning from -3 Degrees C, still no paths gritted wetherby UK
Following an on page audit one recommendation instructs me to ad:
http://www.barrettsteel.com/" /> on the home page of barrett steel. I'm confused, i thought i only had to add this to duplications
the home page which to my knowledge dont exist.So my question is please: "Why shoul i ad this snippet of code on the home page of http://www.barrettsteel.com http://www.barrettsteel.com/" />
Any insights welcome
-
Even a capital letter means a different url
To fix the default.aspx issue
http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-issues-involving-the-default-page
Also make sure you dont have internal links to the default.aspx page
-
I think the idea is, that if your page gets scraped it has the canonical in it.
But you are correct that it is not the correct use, a canonical should not point to itself. Bing does not like it.
-
Ah, I'm not too sure if this was what you meant to ask in your reply to our answer - I thought you were wondering how to find out if there are any other versions of the same page within the SERPs. If that was what you meant, sorry!
I found /default.aspx by experience; I saw that your site was an ASP site which is famous for having /default.aspx as the homepage and 9/10 it won't 301 redirect back to the root.
By the way, I see that you're using a CMS called Kentico. There's a good tutorial here that explains pretty well how to add a canonical tag to all pages: http://devnet.kentico.com/Blogs/Martin-Hejtmanek/January-2010/SEO-tip--Canonical-link-elements-in-Kentico-CMS.aspx
-
Anytime, I hope I helped you come to a decision to use it.
I find the best way to check is to simply search for the content on the page with exact match quotes. I usually start with searching for the the meta title with quotes whilst using a site search, like this:
As you can see though, for this example there's quite alot of pages with the same meta title so it's then best to take a section of the homepage content and search for that, again within a site search like this:
And then lastly to confirm, search for the obvious with a site command such as :
Good luck!
-
If anyone gets the cannce, how can you detect multiple versions of a home page? I mean i had now idea http://www.barrettsteel.com/default.aspx was another version of the home page.
Come on guys tell me your secrets
-
Thanks again Vahe:-) I'm right on it
-
Hi @SEOConsult
Thank you so much vgery helpfull indeed....
regarding: "there aren't any duplicate content issues listed within SERPs currently"
Do you do this by entering the url in the search box and simply looking for duplicate content? How do you do this bit please?
Thanks and keep warm
-
Well done @SEOConsult.
-
The http://www.barrettsteel.com/" /> tag should be added on the other versions of the home page which SEO consult has mentioned.
-
Glad we're not the only ones freezing here, it's -3 here in the north west too!
I've just taken a quick look at barrettsteel.com and whilst there aren't any duplicate content issues listed within SERPs currently, there's nothing stopping canonical issues arising in the future. You can currently view the homepage via the following URL's:
http://www.barrettsteel.com/default.aspx
http://www.barrettsteel.com/Default.aspx (you can change the case for any of the letters, as-long as it says default.aspx (EG DEFAULT.aspx also works).
If someone links to /default.aspx for example, there's a chance that /default.aspx could get indexed. Therefore it's a good idea to add a canonical tag now before you do run into any issues. It doesn't take much to add it anyway, right?
I also like to implement a canonical tag so that if someone completely rips a page, the benefit will hopefully be given back to the site that the page was ripped from due to the canonical tag.
Also unrelated to your question but I found this within the SERPs: http://barrettsteel.netconstruct-preview.co.uk/ Whilst it now has no content, I'd recommend that you 301 redirect all pages from this site to the relevant page on the main site.
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
-
"nofollow" vs. "no follow"
Does anyone know if it is problematic to have a space between the "no" and the "follow"? I just discovered our CMS has been inserting a space and am trying to understand if it the reason why something that we were trying to keep from being indexed has become indexed.
Technical SEO | | LivDetrick0 -
"Equity sculpting" with internal nofollow links
I’ve been trying a couple of new site auditor services this week and they have both flagged the fact that I have some nofollow links to internal pages. I see this subject has popped up from time to time in this community. I also found a 2013 Matt Cutts video on the subject: https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2298312/matt-cutts-you-dont-have-to-nofollow-internal-links At a couple of SEO conferences I’ve attended this year, I was advised that nofollow on internal links can be useful so as not to squander link juice on secondary (but necessary) pages. I suspect many websites have a lot of internal links in their footers and are sharing the love with pages which don’t really need to be boosted. These pages can still be indexed but not given a helping hand to rank by strong pages. This “equity sculpting” (I made that up) seems to make sense to me, but am I missing something? Examples of these secondary pages include login pages, site maps (human readable), policies – arguably even the general contact page. Thoughts? Regards,
Technical SEO | | Warren_Vick
Warren1 -
How should I deal with "duplicate" content in an Equipment Database?
The Moz Crawler is identifying hundreds of instances of duplicate content on my site in our equipment database. The database is similar in functionality to a site like autotrader.com. We post equipment with pictures and our customers can look at the equipment and make purchasing decisions. The problem is that, though each unit is unique, they often have similar or identical specs which is why moz (and presumably google/bing) are identifying the content as "duplicate". In many cases, the only difference between listings are the pictures and mileage- the specifications and year are the same. Ideally, we wouldn't want to exclude these pages from being indexed because they could have some long-tail search value. But, obviously, we don't want to hurt the overall SEO of the site. Any advice would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | DohenyDrones0 -
Target="_blank"
Do href links that leave a site and use target="_blank" to open a new tab impact SEO?
Technical SEO | | ChristopherGlaeser0 -
On-Page Report Card & Rel Canonical
Hello, I ran one of our pages through the On-Page Report Card. Among the results we are getting a lower grade due to the following "critical factor" : Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Explanation If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL. Recommendation We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply. This is for an e-commerce site, and the canonical links are inserted automatically by the cart software. The cart is also creating the canonical url as a relative link, not an absolute URL. In this particular case it's a self-referential link. I've read a ton on this and it seems that this should be okay (I also read that Bing might have an issue with this). Is this really an issue? If so, what is the best practice to pass this critical factor? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | rwilson-seo0 -
Discrepency between # of pages and # of pages indexed
Here is some background: The site in question has approximately 10,000 pages and Google Webmaster shows that 10,000 urls(pages were submitted) 2) Only 5,500 pages appear in the Google index 3) Webmaster shows that approximately 200 pages could not be crawled for various reasons 4) SEOMOZ shows about 1,000 pages that have long URL's or Page Titles (which we are correcting) 5) No other errors are being reported in either Webmaster or SEO MOZ 6) This is a new site launched six weeks ago. Within two weeks of launching, Google had indexed all 10,000 pages and showed 9,800 in the index but over the last few weeks, the number of pages in the index kept dropping until it reached 5,500 where it has been stable for two weeks. Any ideas of what the issue might be? Also, is there a way to download all of the pages that are being included in that index as this might help troubleshoot?
Technical SEO | | Mont0 -
Should there be a canonical tag on my 404 error page?
In my crawl diagnostics, I notice some 4xx client errors. They are appearing for pages that no longer exist, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Shouldn't they just be dealt as 404's? Anyway, on closer inspection I noticed that my 404 error page contains a canonical tag which points to the missing page. Could this be the issue? Is it a good idea to remove the canonical tag from this error page? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Leighm0 -
On-Page Report Card, rel canonical
My site has the rel canonical tags set up for it. The developers say that it is set up correctly. Looking at the source code myself, it looks (to my untutored eyes) to be set up correctly. However, on the On Page Report Card for every page I have checked, it says that it doesn't point to the right page. I'd really like to change all my 'B's to 'A's, but I simply can't see what the issue is.
Technical SEO | | Breakout0
