Canonical tag usage.
-
I have added canonical tags to all my pages, yet I just don't know if I have used them correctly - do you have any ideas on this. My url is http://www.waspkilluk.co.uk
-
ha ha .. Yes people at Google do make mistake.. Check here at -
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
And the interesting thing is that here in this post I informed them to make the changes and they made it .. lolz
-
Per and Deb - thank you so much for taking the time to give me some advice and reassurance on this question. With regards to the "missing gap", I took the code for the tag direct from Matt Cutts page on this, and did think at the time, "why is he missing a space?".
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/canonical-link-tag/
In this article his canonical code is written:
Any ideas why he didn't use the gap, a typo maybe?
-
Good spotted on the syntax, I actually never looked at that (blush)
But as he has the www version within his cannonical on the none www version, there is no need to redirect the none www pages as you state, as the cannonical is just that.
-
Just one small problem. Home page canonical is set as this - http://www.waspkilluk.co.uk/index.html . There is nothing wrong in this, but from user’s perspective it should be this - http://www.waspkilluk.co.uk/ .
And there is a gap missing here –
_ The correct code should be this –_
_Just minor changes, otherwise it is perfectly fine.
Another friendly advice. Please redirect all non www version of pages to its www counter parts. For say, this URL - http://waspkilluk.co.uk/ should be directed to http://www.waspkilluk.co.uk/ . _
-
It looks to me like you have done it perfectly
I did a test without www.* and cannonical pointed to the www version, just as it should.
Haven't checked all your pages, but the 20 random I checked was all OK
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
-
Copied Content - Define Canonical
Hello, The Story I am working on a news organization. Our website is the https://www.neakriti.gr My question regards copied content with source references. Sometimes a small portion of our content is based on some third article that is posted on some site (that is about 1% of our content). We always put "source" reference if that is the case. This is inevitable as "news" is something that sometimes has sources on other news sites, especially if there is something you cannot verify or don't have immediate sources, and therefore you need to state that "according to this source, something has happened". Here is one article of ours that has a source from another site: https://www.neakriti.gr/article/ellada-nea/1503363/nekros-vrethike-o-agnooumenos-arhimandritis-stin-lakonia/ if you open the above article you will see we have a link to the equivalent article of the original source site http://lakonikos.gr/epikairothta/item/133664-nekros-entopistike-o-arximandritis-p-andreas-bolovinos-synexis-enimerosi Now here is my question. I have read in other MOZ forum articles that a "canonical" approach solves this issue... How can we be legit when it comes to duplicate content in the eyes of search engines? Should we use some kind of canonical link to the source site? Should the "canonical" be inside the link in some way? Should it be on our section? Our site has AMP equivalent pages (if you add the /amp keyword at the end of the article URL). Our AMP pages have canonical to our original article. So if we have a "canonical" approach how would the AMP be effected as well? Also by applying a possible canonical solution to the source URL, does that "canonical" effect our article as not being shown in search results, thus passing all indexing to the canonical site? (I know that canonical indicates what URL is to be indexed). Additionally, does such a canonical indication make us legit in such a case in the eyes of search engines? (i.e. it eliminates any possible article duplication for original content in the eyes of search engines?). Or simply put, having a simple link to the original article (as we have it now) is enough for the search engines to understand that we have reference to original article URL? How would we approach this problem in our site based on its current structure?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ioannisanif0 -
Canonical Tag help
Hello everyone, We have implemented canonical tag on our website: http://www.indialetsplay.com/ For e.g. on http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers?limit=42 we added canonical as http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers?limit=all (as it showcase all products) Our default page is http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers Is canonical tag implementation right? Or we need to add any other URL. Please suggest
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Obbserv0 -
Is a 301 Redirect and a Canonical Tag on Uppercase to Lowercase Pages Correct?
We have a medium size site that lost more than 50% of its traffic in July 2013 just before the Panda rollout. After working with a SEO agency, we were advised to clean up various items, one of them being that the 10k+ urls were all mixed case (i.e. www.example.com/Blue-Widget). A 301 redirect was set up thereafter forcing all these urls to go to a lowercase version (i.e. www.example.com/blue-widget). In addition, there was a canonical tag placed on all of these pages in case any parameters or other characters were incorporated into a url. I thought this was a good set up, but when running a SEO audit through a third party tool, it shows me the massive amount of 301 redirects. And, now I wonder if there should only be a canonical without the redirect or if its okay to have tens of thousands 301 redirects on the site. We have not recovered yet from the traffic loss yet and we are wondering if its really more of a technical problem than a Google penalty. Guidance and advise from those experienced in the industry is appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ABK7170 -
Key Word Stuffing and Alt Tags
A site I manage is mostly images on our main landing pages and very little text based content. And many of the images are used across multiple landing pages which we're trying to optimize for different keywords. My problem is trying to use best practices for images and yet at the same time rank well for different keywords. How can I optimize for certain keywords, when the majority of "content" is likely coming from image file name and alt tags which have the EXACT SAME images across multiple landing pages. Hope that makes sense? I do have SOME text on the landing pages. Here's an example of one of the landing pages... remove the XXX in the url (I don't want this page to get indexed some how): XXXkidecals.com/product-category/school-labels/XXX There's probably 90 words describing the content of the category page. And there's about 50 images. If you think the ratio of content landing words to images is fine. What do you suggest in terms of Alt Tags -- do I use any keywords?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Santaur0 -
Google tagged URL an overly-dynamic URL?
I'm reviewing my campaign, and spotted the overly-dynamic URL box showing a few links. Reviewing it, they are my Google Tagged URLs (utm_source, utm_medium_utm_campaign etc) I've turned some internal links to Google Tagged URLs but should these cause concern?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
Should we use the rel-canonical tag?
We have a secure version of our site, as we often gather sensitive business information from our clients. Our https pages have been indexed as well as our http version. Could it still be a problem to have an http and an https version of our site indexed by Google? Is this seen as being a duplicate site? If so can this be resolved with a rel=canonical tag pointing to the http version? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | annieplaskett1 -
Cross Sub Domain Canonical Links
I currently have 1 website, but am planning on dividing it into sub-domains specific to geographic locations such as xxx.co.uk, xxx.it, xxx.es, etc... We are working on creating original content for the sub-sites, however upon launch many will be duplicate pages. Is there a problem with cross sub-domain canonical links? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theLotter0 -
Canonical & noindex? Use together
For duplicate pages created by the "print" function, seomoz says its better to use noindex (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not) and JohnMu says its better to use canonical http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6c18b666a552585d&hl=en What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1