Rel=canonical Query
-
Hello Everyone,
We have just launched our new ecommerce site for flooring in the UK.
I have run through the first crawl and there are 549 instances of rel=canonical including the homepage?
Is this a major issue in any way, i have never had to tackle it before and i would appreciate any advice that could be offered on the subject.
Many Thanks
Andrew
-
Andrew
I would essentially suggest to use the crawl report from SEOMoz as a starting point and see which ones translate into real issues and then the effort/reward/prioritize based on time and resources available as well as the importance of that change.
@Maximise is right-on, you can ignore the canonical "warnings". They are more like an FYI.
-
No problem Andrew.
It depends where in the basket area they are. Keep in mind that the search engines won't submit forms or get into any secure areas so those pages would not be worth changing.
-
Many Thanks for your help Maximise,
Yes that is what i was referring to.
That puts my mind at ease a bit, I'm now going to crack on resolving the 75 critical errors and silly mistakes which have also been found, duplicate page titles etc although some of these are in the basket area, are they worth changing?
Kind Regards
Andrew
-
Hi Andrew,
Are you referring to the rel=canonical under the notices section? If so then this is not a problem, it's just showing that there are canonical tags implemented for these pages. You don't need to change anything.
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 content query
I'm currently reauthoring all of the product pages on our site. Within the redesign of all the pages is a set of "why choose us?" bullet points and "what our customers say" bullet points. On every page these bullet points are the same. We currently have 18% duplicate content sitewide and I'm reluctant to push this. The products are similar but targeted at different professions, so I'm not sure whether to alter the text slightly for the bullet points on each page, remove the bullet points entirely or implement some form of canonicalisation that won't impact the profession-specific pages' ability to rank well.
On-Page Optimization | | EdLongley0 -
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
Pagination with parameter and rel prev rel next
Hi there: I have a doubt about how using the pagination and rel prev | rel next, I will try to sum up this example of pagination: the page number 1 is SEO friendly in order to index it, It also gets metarobots: index, follow. The other ones (pagination), instead, have noindex, follow. In fact, these URLs are not SEO friendly because of they have the parameter "?" to set up pagination, so for this reason, in the past, It has been decided not to index them. Would you suggest also to use rel="prev" rel="next" in this situation? Or would it be better to set up the others ones (pagination) in "SEO friendly" and then, to set up the rel prev | rel next? Thanks a lot in advance for helping 🙂 Greetings Francesca
On-Page Optimization | | Red_educativa0 -
Should I use rel=canonical in this case
Hi SEO pros, I am working on a website competing on the keyword "USA maps" and would appreciate your advice and comments on the issue below. The site has one major page for USA maps and like 5-6 smaller pages under different categories, e.g. US travel maps (under Travel Maps category), US travel guides (under Travel Guides), US atlases (under Atlases), etc. The smaller pages do not rank in search results and are not optimized well for any keyword. Here are my questions: #1. Do you think that if I add rel=canonical to the main USA maps page from all small pages that will help get higher ranking of the main page? #2 Or should I better try to optimize these small pages for the keywords they target (e.g. "US travel maps") and try to send link juice to the main page from text link within the content? Thank you,
On-Page Optimization | | ParisChildress0 -
Help with Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Whenever i enable Canonical URL through the 3DCart Control panel I get this Critical Factor error when running the on page report card: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://rcnitroshop.com/Nitro-Monster-Truck"</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>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.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>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.</dd> </dl> Now if I disable Canonical URL then run the on page report card again the critical error goes away but I get this Optional Factor error instead: Canonical URL Tag Usage Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>0</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.</dd> </dl> So basically I disabled it because obviously a Critical error is much worse then an optional error. Is there a way I can get rid of both errors?
On-Page Optimization | | bilsonx0 -
Using rel="author" on product descriptions
Unique and effective product descriptions can be one of the most expensive investments that go into building a retail website. I would consider them part of the "intellectual property" of a company. These descriptions are also one of the most often pirated types of content. Some product descriptions have been grabbed and used by hundreds of pirates. When people grab your product descriptions it creates a duplicate content problem, it also starts cutting off your long-tail traffic. The discussion topic here is.... Have you heard of anyone using rel="author" on product pages with substantive content? Do you think there is any value in doing that? Is this an abuse of rel="author" Thank you!
On-Page Optimization | | EGOL1 -
Which Canonical URL Tag tag should we remove?
Hi guys, We are in the process of optimizing the pages of our new site. We have used the 'on page' report card feature in the Seomoz Pro Campaign analyser. On several pages we got the following result No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Number of Canonical tags <dl> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> </dl> I have looked into the source code of one of the pages http://www.sabaileela.co.uk/acupuncture-london and can see that there are two "canonical" tags. Does anyone have any advise on which one I should ask the developer to remove? I am not sure how to determine the relative importance of either link.
On-Page Optimization | | brian.james0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0