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
-
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
Is there an advantage to using rel=canonical rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)?
Is there an advantage to using link rel=alternate (as recommended by Google) rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)? The content on the mobile pages is very similar to the content on the desktop site. I see Google recommends canonical and alternate tags, but what are the benefits of using those rather than noindex?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jennifer.new0 -
"Leeching" backlinks...yes or no?
A lot of websites, by virtue of practicality, will link to wikipedia articles to explain certain concepts. Would it be worthwhile to reach out to those websites and ask them to change the link to a different resource if that resource is a much better alternative than the wikipedia article? And how would you approach this? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mack-ayache0 -
Content Marketing: Use of the words "guest post" in outreach email
Hello, I'm marketing a useful article in our niche, appealing to the humanitarian side of things and I always show I'm a reciprocator. Should my wording in my outreach email be: ...to write a guest post around this article: http://... Or should I just ask if they want help with content and go from there? In other words, should I always call it a guest post for maximum conversions? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Redirect 301 or Canonical.
Hello all, I have a page with a long post title and url path name (more than 70 caracters and 115). This page has many visits but I am changing the SEO website structure according to SEOMOz and forums guidelines so: I WILL CREATE A DUPLICATE PAGE WITH THE SAME INFO. This issue has been marked as an issue in the SEO tools, for long names>70 and url path names>115 My question is which option should I use and you would recommend me? 1. OPTION 1: Ideally I would like to keep the old post, so I should use the canonical tag, but my main concern is if the search engines in terms of SEO, even the canonical has been done, will penalise my SEO as there is still a post with bad SEO optimising, or if this is not the case because I already used the canonical. 2. OPTION 2: Eliminate the post and redirection 301 to the new page to keep the juice. I would prefer option 1, as I keep both post and page, but only if searchengines do not penalise my SEO as they detect a long post name and url path name. Thank you verty much, Antonio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aalcocer20030 -
Do "NoFollow" links provide any SEO value?
Do "nofollow" links provide any SEO value, particularly for Google? I have heard that they still can, since Google doesn't necessarily follow all of the tags. Is this true? Is there any value in obtaining nofollow links? Can they also hurt in any way? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | applesofgold
Afshin Apples of Gold0 -
"site" operator and pages
Hi folks, We are having trouble in indexing, We have certain pages which are not coming in results when I am using the site operator in Google. for e.g. : sitename.com/widgets/red They are not showing any link results in Google webmaster tools too. But the pages which only linked through them are displaying in results when I am using site operator. for e.g: sitename.com/widgets/red/large We are redirecting some of the search which are close or exact match to the respective pages for e.g: sitename.com/search/red --> sitename.com/widgets/red We are fluctuating on rankings too in google serps form top ppositions to no where, for sitename.com/widgets/red and most of the times when google shows sitename.com/search/red instead of itename.com/widgets/red. Can you please put a light on this issues.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | semshah1430 -
How Can I know that a link placed is not lableld "No Follow"?
If someone wants to trade links, how can I be sure the link is followed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEObleu.com0