Canonical to the page itself?
-
Hello,
I'd like to know what happens when you use canonical to the same page itself, like:
Page "example.com"
rel canonical="example.com"
Does that impact in something? Bad or good?
See ya!
-
We're re-evaluating the canonical notice, as it's confusing to a lot of people. Our intent wasn't necessarily to say that the tag is wrong, but more of a "heads up" (in case there are potential problems). Unfortunately, there's no good way to automatically detect what page a canonical should point to, so we tend to have to use general warnings.
-
According to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8eQgx-njk4 Matt says there is no penalization of any kind with a canonical tag referencing to the page itself.
However, I have noticed that SEOMoz doesn't like it. It keeps reporting thousands of canonicals in the "Notices" report as if there was something I should do about it.
-
Keep in mind that a lot of my organic SEO client work is helping people deal with massive-scale duplicate content problems (including Panda issues), so I'm probably a bit more hyper-sensitive than your average person
-
For some people, a "landing page" could have URL variants, like tracking parameters for affiliates. So, it's hard to talk about them in a vacuum. If you're talking about a regular main-nav page like "About Us", you'd almost never need a canonical tag.
-
For e-commerce I think is very important, even more for the big ones, that have a lot of filters of princing or color that are in fact other URLs. There we need to input a canonical.
But for landing pages, N1 deep, that seems like a hotsite, when the company just sells one online service, I can't imagine what kind of benefits using "self canonical" in a page like this.
Sorry for making this longer, I should've chosen Discussion up there!
Answer when you can! =] -
I'd say it's a matter of risk. If you're on an e-commerce site, for sample, where the risk of a page having URL-based duplicates is high, a pre-emptive canonical can make sense. In a perfect world, I agree with Alan - it's better not to need them. I've just rarely seen that perfect world on large sites.
"Landing pages" is a loaded term, though, because landing pages can often have tracking parameters (such as affiliate IDs) and other URL modifications. Some landing pages are a perfect storm of dupe content. So, it's really situational.
-
Thanks for the attention Peter.
I understand your point about the Homepage.
But what about other pages? Landing pages with canonical to it self?
It seems to me meaningless, or worse, lowering trust, like Bing seems to do, in the link Alan wrote above.
-
I think it's good for some pages, especially the home-page, because you can naturally have so many variants ("www" vs. non-www, for example). It's a lot easier to pre-emptively canonicalize them than 301-redirect every URL variant that might pop up over time.
While Alan's concerns are technically correct, I've never seen evidence that either Google or Bing actually devalue a page for a self-referencing canonical. For Google, the risks of duplicates are much worse than the risk of an unnecessary canonical tag, IMO. For Bing, I don't really have good data either way. More and more people use canonical proactively, so I suspect Bing doesn't take action.
I don't generally use it site-wide, unless needed, but I almost always recommend a canonical on the home-page, at least for now. Technical SEO is always changing.
-
yes you are correct,
The only good thing about doing it is stopping scrapers, if they dont take them out, but i dont think this is much of a advanatge as I believ if you do get scraped it is likely that they will remove you canonical, if they dont, I believe that SE's will see that they have a site full of duplicate content and give the credit to you anyhow. I think that SE's get this correct most of the time.
And if you are using canonicals for a valid reason, you dont want Bing to ingnore them because you have misused them elsewhere. Even for 2%
-
Thanks Alan,
So, what seems is that "self page canonical" has no clear or even any good points for taking the risk of doing it?
I'm more concerned about Google, once I'm from Brazil, and Google rules 98% of searches...
-
When some one scrapes your site they take the canonical with them, pointing back to the original, so you still get credit. that is if they dont take it out.
But this is a miss use of a canonical, a canonical should not point back to the same page.
Bing for one has said that they will lose trust in your site if you do this, they will start to not trust all your canonicals, those that are there for a good reason.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/webmaster/archive/2011/10/06/managing-redirects-301s-302s-and-canonicals.aspxGoogle have said that they can handle it.
But a canonical does not pass all the link juice, so a canonical to itself, does it leak link juice? google says that can handle it, but that does not mean there is not a leak in link juice.
I for one dont do it, bing has made it clear they dont like, and even though google have said they can handle it, it does not mean there is no down side.
-
Thanks Stephen!
Can your talk more about the scrape? It was not too clear for me.
Sorry =]
-
Nothing bad and turns good when people scrape your content (it gets scraped with the canonical to your page) or you make a mistake with your information architecture (as things tend to point to the correct place)
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
-
Wrong page ranking on SERP, above more relevant page
Often I will see the wrong page, something less relevant to a particular search, appear higher on the SERP than a more relevant page. Why does this happen and how can it be remedied? I found this Moz article, has anything been written on this topic more recently. Thanks! https://moz.com/blog/wrong-page-ranking-in-the-results-6-common-causes-5-solutions
On-Page Optimization | | NicheSocial0 -
Duplicated page titles
Dear friends, We have a problem which occurs on our page with duplicated page titles. Landlords are posting rooms on our page and most of them are giving the same name to the rooms and after that, we are getting more and more duplicated page titles. We are applying random whit this title tag: Accommodation for students in {city.name}: {name}. English title
On-Page Optimization | | Eurasmus.com
Certified student rooms in {city.name}: {name} English title
Erasmus room for students in {city.name} | {name} English title
Student room in {city.name}: {name} English title Also our title tag is sometimes to long but there is no possibility to make them shorter. I think. If anyone would have some idea be free to comment and help us. Kind regards Miško Macolić Tomičić0 -
Rel-canonical
Hi, I am a bit confused. A potential clients website has three versions: http://www. http:// http://dev. In each version they have used the rel=canonical back to each base version. So http://www." http://" http://dev." I would have expected duplicate content but I see only one version of the content when I check using "....." in Google. Using the site: tool I see that all three versions are indexed. When moving through the navigation on them, they all redirect to the one home page - the www version. Any idea what is going on and what should be recommended?Redirecting all versions to the www. version? Is it a problem?
On-Page Optimization | | AL123al0 -
Page Not Indexed
Hi Guys I wrote and published an article last night on my site but it is yet to be indexed. This is strange as articles are usually indexed pretty quickly. Could you have a quick look and see what the problem is? http://www.rankmytri.com/tomtom-running-and-triathlon-watch/ Also all my Blog posts (in the blog section of the site) are not indexed as well (and I dont think they have been for a while) yet I dont have any messages from Google in my webmaster tools. Thoughts? Thanks in advance Ross
On-Page Optimization | | ross88guy0 -
Temporary Redirect pages
Hi, Temporary Redirect pages example when a non member goes to http://www.Somesite.com/detail/Username-Mike As he clicks the user names the user is directed to the login page http://www.Somesite.com/user/login We have 50K user accounts and 50K pages of content and each page has an option to comment and to comment user should be a member Moz campaing i get these 1,000's of links in Temporary Redirect page What is the action i can take thanks
On-Page Optimization | | mtthompsons0 -
Canonical issue
Hi, Very new to seomoz but very impressed. First report has shown me that I have duplicate pages. Some seem to be duplicate titles and some were duplicates of pages i found on the server. however the main problem is it seems to be picking up pages with www and without it which I have a vague idea is a canonical issue. so it throws up pages like this: http://web-writer-articles.co.uk and http://www.web-writer-articles.co.uk I want it just to pick up pages with www Firstly should it be picking up both and if not how can I make amendments so that it is only picking up pages which include www ? thank you for your help, louandel15
On-Page Optimization | | louandel150 -
Duplicate Page Titles
I have over 200 duplicate page titles on a site that I am working on. Does putting a date at the end of some of them make it a unique enough title?
On-Page Optimization | | SavingSense0 -
SEO Value of Within-Page Links vs. Separate Pages
Title says it all. Assuming that you're talking about similar content (let's say, widgets), which is better: using within-page links for variations or using separate pages? I.e., do we have a widget page and then do in-page links to describe green, blue, and red widgets, or separate pages for each type of widget? In-page pro: more content on a single page, thus more keywords, key phrases, and general appearance of real content. In-page con: Jakob Neilsen says they're confusing. Also, for SEO, you only get one page title, rather than a separate page title for each. My personal bias is for in-page, since I hate creating dozens of short pages for what could be on one page, but my suspicion is that separate pages are better for SEO.
On-Page Optimization | | maxkennerly0