What is the proper syntax for rel="canonical" ??
-
I believe the proper syntax is like this [taken from the SEOMoz homepage]:
However,
one of the sites I am working on has all of their canonical tags set up like this:
I should clarify, not all of their canonicals are identical to this one, they simply use this naming convention, which appears to be relative URLs instead of absolute.
Doesn't the entire URL need to be in the tag? If that is correct, can you also provide me with an explanation that I can give to management please? They hate it when I say "Because I said so!" LOL
-
Thanks Dr. Pete! An you know what? You are absolutely right. Google has interpreted the canonical just that way and it's been in our GWT reports forever and no one could figure out where they were coming from.
Thank you, thank you, thank you (in my Gomer Pyle voice, of course!)
Wow, it's amazing how fixing one thing can sometimes take you down a whole nother road and fix something else at the same time. I just can't thank both you and George enough.
Kudos to George on a great answer.
-
Endorsing George for the full thread. Technically, Google does allow relative URLs, but I've heard of some odd issues, so I think it's better to use full URLs. Your home-page version isn't really either an absolute or relative URL - you really should have the "http://" (protocol) in that URL. If you're being nitpicky, that's an improper URL, and Google could end up interpreting it as something like:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/www.ccisolutions.com
Now, odds are, they won't, but with these tags it's really best to do it by the book.
-
No problem, glad to help!
-
Agreed. I think if we can change the Storefront to storefront without having to employ any kinds of redirects it would be great. Otherwise, the site is so old, that it may not matter.
Along those lines, we recently had the opportunity to remove /Storefront from the URL string. We chose not to because the site is 10 years old and didn't want to risk losing any page or domain authority by having a whole bunch of 301 redirects.
Certainly interested to know your take from the viewpoint of someone who knows code. Thanks George!
-
Yes, you are correct. But only if you have a base link in the document:
<base href="http://www.ccisolutions.com/">
This is a very good example for why you may want to stick to Absolute URLs. With an absolute URL you only need to know the actual URL of the page:
Hopefully I'm not adding even more to the fire, but now might be a good time to change "StoreFront" to "storefront" all lowercase. I think lowercase URLs are better if you can use them.
-
Thanks so very much George for your thorough answer. This is exactly what I needed know, and it makes it possible for me to explain it to the CEO. It appears we have a confusing mixture of absolute and relative URLs, that need to be sorted out. I think sticking with the absolutes will makes it much easier.
While we have this on the home page:
This is an example of a category page canonical tag:
Would I be correct is saying that there is a problem here because the actual URL of the page is
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/wireless-microphones
So if we are going to use the relative URL in our canonical tag, it should be:
Is that correct?
-
Also just to clarify, when you state they are using "relative" URLs, are you talking about "www.ccisolutions.com/page1.html" vs. "http://www.ccisoultions.com/page1.html"?
If this is true, then both versions are absolute URLs. A relative URL is different. Here are a few examples of relative URLs:
page1.html
/products/page1.html
../products/page1.html
../images/image1.jpg
/images/image1.jpg
image1.jpg
Each of the above are "relative links". Absolute links look like the following and don't necessarily need the "http://":
www.ccisolutions.com/products/page1.html
http://www.ccisolutions.com/products/page1.html
Hope this helps too.
-
Document refers to the single web page you are placing the canonical link on.
The base link is referring to the URL you can provide as the href property for the base tag. The base tag can be included in the head of your HTML document.
Example base link:
<base href="http://www.ccisolutions.com/">
If you choose to use the example base link above and this relative URL:
Your canonical link will end up referring to “http://www.ccisolutions.com/page1.html”.
Here is a second example, this time using a new base link which includes the products directory:
<base href="http://www.ccisolutions.com/products/">
If you choose to use this new base link and the following relative URL:
Your canonical link will end up referring to “http://www.ccisolutions.com/products/page1.html”.
If you choose to use this new base link and this relative URL:
Your canonical link will actually refer to one-level-up from your base link or “http://www.ccisolutions.com/page1.html”. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the syntax "../" (dot dot slash), but it means to go up one level from the current directory.
The use of base links for canonical linking might be useful for a CMS where the content is generally dynamically created. It might be good to sit down with your developers and discuss which tactic would be best for the site in question.
I am including a link to this SEOmoz blog post in case it is also of help.
Edit: expanded on the explanations...
-
Thanks George. Can you help me with what this means on a large site "
If your document specifies a base link, any relative links
will be relative to that base link." ? Does "document" refer to the entire site, or a single Web page? Thanks!
-
Hello Dana,
I suggest reading this over: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
Midway down the page, Google states:
Can the link be relative or absolute?
rel="canonical"
can be used with relative or absolute links, but werecommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or
difficulties. If your document specifies a base link, any relative links
will be relative to that base link.
Hope this helps!
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
-
If I put a piece of content on an external site can I syndicate to my site later using a rel=canonical link?
Could someone help me with a 'what if ' scenario please? What happens if I publish a piece of content on an external website, but then later decide to also put this content on my website. I want my website to rank first for this content, even though the original location for the content was the external website. Would it be okay for me to put a rel=canonical tag on the external website's content pointing to the copy on my website? Or would this be seen as manipulative?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RG_SEO1 -
Best Way To Go About Fixing "HTML Improvements"
So I have a site and I was creating dynamic pages for a while, what happened was some of them accidentally had lots of similar meta tags and titles. I then changed up my site but left those duplicate tags for a while, not knowing what had happened. Recently I began my SEO campaign once again and noticed that these errors were there. So i did the following. Removed the pages. Removed directories that had these dynamic pages with the remove tool in google webmasters. Blocked google from scanning those pages with the robots.txt. I have verified that the robots.txt works, the pages are longer in google search...however it still shows up in in the html improvements section after a week. (It has updated a few times). So I decided to remove the robots.txt file and now add 301 redirects. Does anyone have any experience with this and am I going about this the right away? Any additional info is greatly appreciated thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tarafaraz0 -
Do I eventually 301 a page on our site that "expires," to a page that's related, but never expires, just to utilize the inbound link juice?
Our company gets inbound links from news websites that write stories about upcoming sporting events. The links we get are pointing to our event / ticket inventory pages on our commerce site. Once the event has passed, that event page is basically a dead page that shows no ticket inventory, and has no content. Also, each “event” page on our site has a unique url, since it’s an event that will eventually expire, as the game gets played, or the event has passed. Example of a url that a news site would link to: mysite.com/tickets/soldier-field/t7493325/nfc-divisional-home-game-chicago bears-vs-tbd-tickets.aspx Would there be any negative ramifications if I set up a 301 from the dead event page to another page on our site, one that is still somewhat related to the product in question, a landing page with content related to the team that just played, or venue they play in all season. Example, I would 301 to: mysite.com/venue/soldier-field tickets.aspx (This would be a live page that never expires.) I don’t know if that’s manipulating things a bit too much.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ticket_King1 -
"No Index, No Follow" or No Index, Follow" for URLs with Thin Content?
Greetings MOZ community: If I have a site with about 200 thin content pages that I want Google to remove from their index, should I set them to "No Index, No Follow" or to "No Index, Follow"? My SEO firm has advised me to set them to "No Index, Follow" but on a recent MOZ help forum post someone suggested "No Index, No Follow". The MOZ poster said that telling Google the content was should not be indexed but the links should be followed was inconstant and could get me into trouble. This make a lot of sense. What is proper form? As background, I think I have recently been hit with a Panda 4.0 penalty for thin content. I have several hundred URLs with less than 50 words and want them de-indexed. My site is a commercial real estate site and the listings apparently have too little content. Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Ranking of Moz "A" grade page.
Hello, I built a site in Weebly recently and it was indexed by Google and the one page in fact ranked #1 for one keyword. I used absolutely no SEO optimization techniques for this. It then rapidly dropped out of sight (not surprising ). I have now optimized the site in general and specifically the page www.insolvencylifeline.co.za/voluntary-sequestration-process as recommended by Moz. All the optimization was on-page, except that I also used the SEOProfiler tool to submit the site to their list of search engines recommended and I manually linked to a number of reputable directories. I did this on 09/03. If I search for www.insolvencylifeline.co.za/voluntary-sequestration-process I can see the page has been cached on 10/3. However,if I search for any of my 3 search terms for example "voluntary sequestration" and then do an advanced search for "insolvencylifeline", I only get search results for pages cached before 9/3. My page www.insolvencylifeline.co.za/voluntary-sequestration-process which I know is fully optimized (“A” Moz grade) for the search term, does not rank at all. Also if I search for www.insolvencylifeline.co.za, I can see that the page also was cached on 10/3. However, it does not show www.insolvencylifeline.co.za/voluntary-sequestration-process at all and the other pages shown were all cached before 9/3. Does this mean that the page www.insolvencylifeline.co.za/voluntary-sequestration-process does not rank at all even though it is indexed? If so, any thoughts on why? Regards, Gerhard.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gerrhard0 -
Using Canonical Attribute
Hi All, I am hoping you can help me? We have recently migrated to the Umbraco CMS and now have duplicate versions of the same page showing on different URLs. My understanding is that this is one of the major reasons for the rel=canonical tag. So am I right in saying that if I add the following to the page that I want to rank then this will work? I'm just a little worried as I have read some horror stories of people implementing this attribute incorrectly and getting into trouble. Thank you in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Creditsafe0 -
Canonical URL Question
Hi Everyone I like to run this question by the community and get a second opinion on best practices for an issue that I ran into. I got two pages, Page A is the original page and Page B is the page with duplicate content. We already added** ="Page A**" />** to the duplicate content (Page B).** **Here is my question, since Page B is duplicate content and there is a link rel="canonical" added to it, would you put in the time to add meta tags and optimize the title of the page? Thanks in advance for all your help.**
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRTBA0 -
Does a Single Instance of rel="nofollow" cause all instances on a page to be nofollowed?
I attended the Bruce Clay training at SMX Advanced Seattle, and he mentioned link pruning/sculpting (here's an SEOMoz article about it - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-says-yes-you-can-still-sculpt-pagerank-no-you-cant-do-it-with-nofollow) Now during his presentation he mentioned that if you have one page with multiple links leading to another page, and one of those links is nofollowed, it could cause all links to be nofollowed. Example: Page A has 4 links to Page B: 1:followed, 2:followed, 3:nofollowed, 4:followed The presence of a single nofollow tag would override the 3 followed links and none of them would pass link juice. Has anyone else encountered this problem, and Is there any evidence to support this? I'm thinking this would make a great experiment.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brycebertola0