What is "canonical." And what do I need to do to fix it?
-
I'm seeing about 450 warnings on this.
What is "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical."
And what do I need to do to fix it?
-
Anthony's definitely got the basics covered. How to handle any particular situation can get pretty tricky. I wrote a post about it, and that post got very long very fast:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/duplicate-content-in-a-post-panda-world
I took a quick look at your campaign (I have Staff access), and it seems your login page is carrying an event ID - so every event is creating a different URL, but they all land on one page. That could spin out 100s of duplicates on Google, and that login page has little or no search value. A canonical tag would definitely be a good bet here.
You may have other issues going on, but clean up one at a time - getting that number down can definitely be beneficial and help boost your ranking power.
-
Anthony's response is correct for explaining what a canonical does. My response is for how to implement it. Say you have an online store that uses a bread crumb system. While you may have one main URL for a widget, multiple URLs could be created if visitors are taking multiple paths to find this widget. So say the main URL for this widget's page is: example.com/widget You could have many copies of this page on your website with different URLs. If you have URLs such as example.com/widget/1, example.com/widget/2, example.com/widget/3, and they all have the same content as example.com/widget, Google will see all of these pages as being duplicate content. So to take care of this you use a canonical. If you want example.com/widget to be the page that has the authority over the rest of the other URLs with the same content, you will need to create a canonical. The canonical for example.com/widget is: SEE EDIT BELOW Then you will want to take the canonical and put it somewhere inbetween the header for all of those URLs that have the same content. And as Anthony said www.example.com/widget is considered a different page than example.com/widget, so it would need the canonical from above as well, and the same goes for www. example.com/widget/1-3. http://www.ginzametrics.com/cheatsheet This link will take you to a great tool that generates meta tags and can also create a canonical link for you, if you don't want to type it all out. To make a canonical with the tool just copy and paste the main URL that you would like to use and it will create the canonical link below that you can copy and paste into the the pages head. EDIT: I don't think SEOmoz will let you post canonicals. But if you go the the link with the tool I provided you should still be able to create a canonical. It is a very simple and straight forward tool that can generate the canonical for you. Good luck.
-
There is a very good explanation of "canonical" at http://tinyurl.com/38ycpw8. by Jody Nimetz
The first part of it I have inserted here..... trust it helps:
Canonical URL: the search engine friendly URL that you want the search engines to treat as authoritative. In other words, a canonical URL is the URL that you want visitors to see.
Quite often canonical URLs were used to describe the homepage. The typical example used is that most people treat the following URLs as the same:
www.example.com
example.com
www.example.com/index.html
example.com/home.aspThe fact is that these are all different URLs. From a search engine perspective, this can cause a bit of an issue. Hence the idea of canonicalization. Canonicalization is the process of picking the best URL (to present to the search engines) when there are multiple choices available. Typically a search engine, such as Google will attempt to pick the best URL that they feel is the authority for that page. However, sometimes they may in fact select the wrong one. Now let’s suggest that you have product pages that depending on how the user navigated to the pager returns a different URL… same page but different URL, now we have a duplicate content issue. Not to mention the nightmare for interlinking and external link inventories.
The easiest way to avoid this is to let the Search engines and the users know which is your “preferred URL” a.k.a canonical URL.............................
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
-
Are "appliance repair" and "appliance repair los angeles" consider the same keyword?
Hello, I know that you can't optimize two pages for 1 keyword because Google will get confused and will rather prefer my competitor. But I can't get if it will consider "appliance repair" and "appliance repair los angeles" same keywords? The homepage of my website, https://www.ifixappliancesla.com, is optimized for "appliance repair", one of the inner pages is optimized for "appliance repair los angeles". None of them shows on the first page in local SERPs for any of those quires. I am wondering if this is because Google sees it as both pages are optimized for "appliance repair"?
Technical SEO | | VELV0 -
GSC: Change of Domain Not Processed, Despite Saying "Approved"?
Hi folks, I've just completed a straightforward olddomain -> newdomain migration. All the redirects were done on 7th Feb. I submitted the change of domain request on 7th Feb. All seemed fine - as can be seen in the attached. It's now 19th March and our pals at GSC are still saying that the domain migration is ongoing. I've never had this take so long before; 2-3 days tops. Their results are tanking as I can't geo target and more features in GSC are out of action as it's 'locked' due to this migration (I just get a screen as per the attached). Thoughts? Shall I risk withdrawing the request and starting anew? The old "turn it off and on again"? Thanks! hJXKC
Technical SEO | | tonyatfat0 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
Rel="publisher" validation error in html5
Using HTML5 I am getting a validation error on in my HTML Validation error: Bad value publisher for attribute rel on element link: Not an absolute IRI. The string publisher is not a registered keyword or absolute URL. This just started showing up on Tuesday in validation errors. Never showed up in the past. Has something changed?
Technical SEO | | RoxBrock0 -
Rel="next"
Hi I was just wondering if there is any difference in using rel='next' rather than rel="next". Would it still work the same way? I mean using the apostrophes differently, would it matter? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | pikka0 -
Canonical tag or 301
Hi, Our crawl report is showing duplicate content. some of the report I am clear about what to do but on others I am not. Some of the duplicate content arises with a 'theme=default' on the end of the URL. Is this version of a page necessary for people to see when they visit the site (like a theme=print page is) in which case I think we should use a canonical tag, or is it not necessary in which case we should use a 301? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Houses0 -
Rel="canonical" for PFDs?
Hello there, We have a lot of PDFs that seem to end up on other websites. I was wondering if there was a way to make sure that our website gets the credit/authority as the original creator. Besides linking directly from the PDF copy to our pages, is anyone aware of strategy for letting Google know that we are the original publishers? I know search engines can index HTML versions of PDFs, so is there anyway to get them to index a rel="canonical" tag as well? Thoughts/Ideas?
Technical SEO | | Tektronix0 -
Is "last modified" time in XML Sitemaps important?
My Tech lead is concerned that his use of a script to generate XML sitemaps for some client sites may be causing negative issues for those sites. His concern centers around the fact that the script generates a sitemap which indicates that every URL page in the site was last modified at the exact same date and time. I have never heard anything to indicate that this might be a problem, but I do know that the sitemaps I generate for other client sites can choose server response or not. What is the best way to generate the sitemap? Last mod from actual time modified, or all set at one date and time?
Technical SEO | | ShaMenz0