Canonical tags
-
In previous we had issues with capital letters in page urls. So we made a 301 redirection to lower case page url. But I read there that it's not good idea to use 301 redirection, better solution for that canonical tag. So we placed canonical url tak to lower case page url... So after week, in google webmaster tools I see around 60k os dublicate pages. Why google don't see canonical tag?
Thank you
-
**google bot crawled our new pages yesterday, canonical tag was placed maybe week ago. **
The canonical tag which is providing the adjustment is the one on the old page, not the new one. In order to fully update Google needs to crawl both the old and new pages.
So it should see this tag, but looks like they ignore this tag.
That is not true. Your understanding of how the process works is not complete. You are not using the best solution and you are expecting results way too fast.
301 redirection is not good idea as we loose ~10% of link juice, that's why it's recommended to use canonical.
You lose a small amount of link juice when performing a redirect. That amount is estimated as between 1 and 10%.
You lose the same amount when using a canonical tag.
All of the above information is correct, but I sense you are convinced otherwise so perhaps this video from Matt Cutts will change your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA
-
google bot crawled our new pages yesterday, canonical tag was placed maybe week ago. So it should see this tag, but looks like they ignore this tag. We do not block urls in robots.txt. 301 redirection is not good idea as we loose ~10% of link juice, that's why it's recommended to use canonical.
-
Personally, I'd try to eradicate the problem at the root. Make sure your CMS does not generate any URLs in upper case letters at all, and you'll have the best solution for this problem!
-
I am not sure where you got the idea the canonical tag would be a better solution. Faced with the situation you shared, I would use the 301 redirect.
A canonical tag is best when you need to maintain more then one version of a URL. For example, if you sell radio controlled cars on your site it may be a good idea to list it under /toys/radio-controlled-car and also under gifts/radio-controlled-car. One of those pages would be the primary page which the other would be duplicate content. You can use a canonical tag to let search engines know which is the primary page.
In your case, there is no reason to maintain the old page with the upper-case URL. Therefore I would use a 301 redirect and only offer the new page on your site.
So after week, in google webmaster tools I see around 60k os dublicate pages. Why google don't see canonical tag?
For starters, expect it to take a month for Google to see all the pages of a large site. Google will crawl a small percentage of your site each day.
There could be various issues with your site which can affect Google's ability to see the change. For example, if you block the pages with robots.txt, Google would not see the canonical tag.
My recommendation would be to implement the 301 redirect then submit an updated sitemap to Google. The next step is to wait 30 days.
-
Google does seem to take a while with canonical tags. However, it sounds like a 301 might be the better choice in these circumstances.
When choosing between 301 & canonical, the issue for me is the user experience. If the 2 URLs show different content and the user would expect to be able to find either set then I'd go with canonical. Otherwise it is 301. If you are just trying to stop issues with capitalisation in URLs then really it should be a 301.
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
-
Duplicate title tags, how to solve that?
We are currently running the "yellow pages". The problem is that Google Webmasters reports a lot of duplicate title tags. It's because we have three languages and the title consists of company name. for example: FCR Media Lietuva, UAB (The same in all languages). Of course we make different meta desriptions and so on. How should we solve this problem or should be just leave it as it is?
On-Page Optimization | | FCRMediaLietuva0 -
Is there a set length / restriction on ALT tag content?
Something in which is an essential part of any site but I cant for the life of me remember if there is a set / recommended limit to the size if should be or is restricted to.
On-Page Optimization | | SamPenno0 -
Does a phone number in the title tag hurt your rankings in SERP?
Hi Mozzers, One of my client is a carpet cleaner and I was wondering if adding a phone number into the title tags would hurt our rankings . I am asking because the client has mentioned it and that we do have some space to add a phone number into the tag. Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Title Tag Over Optimization
Hey, I've read that adding the company name to the title tag was a waste of space since the more words the less weight each one has, with all this over optimization preventive measures, should I rewrite the title tags format with company names? and if so should it be (company name): (naturally organized keywords) (naturally organized keyword) | (Company name). or can I keep it just naturally organized keywords Also I used to do (keyphrase) - (keyphrase) instead of commas, should I fix this? I asked this question on Randy's post http://www.seomoz.org/blog/6-changes-every-seo-should-make-before-the-over-optimization-penalty-hits-whiteboard-friday but didn't really get an answer. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | nrv0 -
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 -
Title Tag length and UTF-8
Hello seomozers! Today I've come to one interesting question about Title Tag lenght in UTF-8 coded content. It's relevant to description tag lenght too. So, as we all know SEO best practices recommend that my Title tag should be under 70 (or 75) characters. Now, we have a website which is UTF-8 coded. That means that our special characters (some lithuanian letters) at the end gains +4 or +5 characters in length. So Google Webmaster Tools in our case report that some Title Tags are longer than they should be (exceeded by those +4 or +5), but in SERPs we see clear and not trunctated Title Tags (which means that our title tags are displayed correctly in UTF-8). The question is - should I believe in SERPs and don't take any action or maybe should I notice Google Webmaster Tools recommendations and shorten those tags ? Well, I do believe that at the end it's not so important, but I'd like to hear some more opinions on this simple situation.
On-Page Optimization | | jkundrotas0 -
Almost all pages showing under Notices Rel Canonical - why???
Hi, I'm just going through my latest crawl since my new site launch and havce noticed almost all of my websites pages are listed under the notices rel canonical section, Why is this? All pages have the unique pages titles followed by the site name in the title, for example: Product | Site name All pages have unique meta descriptions and content (although we only offer lots of differt varients of the same product). Is this something I should be worried about?
On-Page Optimization | | EclipseLegal0 -
Rel="canonical"
Can you tell me if we've implemented rel="canonical" properly? We want this to be our primary: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- while this would be duplicate and refer robots back to the URL above: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6054284 We've added the following to both pages: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- "/> Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | jonesatl0