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
-
Putting rel=canonical tags on blogpost pointing to product pages
I came across an article mentioning this as a strategy for getting product pages (which are tough to get links for) some link equity. See #21: content flipping: https://www.matthewbarby.com/customer-acquisition-strategies Has anyone done this? Seems like this isn't what the tag is meant for, and Google may see this as deceptive? Any thoughts? Jim
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jim_shook0 -
Is Chamber of Commerce membership a "paid" link, breaking Google's rules?
Hi guys, This drives me nuts. I hear all the time that any time value is exchanged for a link that it technically violates Google's guidelines. What about real organizations, chambers of commerce, trade groups, etc. that you are a part of that have online directories with DO-follow links. On one hand people will say these are great links with real value outside of search and great for local SEO..and on the other hand some hardliners are saying that these technically should be no-follow. Thoughts???
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley0 -
302 to a page and rel=canonical back to the original (to preserve url juice)?
Bit of a weird case, but let me explain. We use unbounce.com to create our landing pages, which are on a separate sub-domain (get.domain.com).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dragonlawhq
Some of these landing pages have a substantial amount of useful information and are part of our content building strategy (our content marketers are able to deploy them without going through the dev team cycle). We'd like to make sure the seo page-juice is counting towards our primary domain and not the subdomain.
(It would also help if we one day stop using unbounce and just migrate our landing page content to our primary website). Would it be an SEO faux-pas to do the following:
domain.com/awesome-page ---[302]---> get.domain.com/awesome-page
get.domain.com/awesome-page ---[rel=canonical]---> domain.com/awesome-page My understanding is that our primary domain would hold all the "page juice" whilst sending users to the unbounce landing page - and the day we stop using unbounce, we just kill the redirect and host the content on our primary domain.0 -
Two pages on same domain - Is this a proper use of the canonical tag?
I have a domain with two pages in question--one is an article with 2,000 words and the other is a FAQ with 300 words. The 300 word FAQ is copied, word-for-word and pasted inside of the 2,000 word article. Would it be a proper use of the canonical tag to point the smaller, 300 word FAQ at the 2,000 word article? Since the 300 word article is identical to a portion of the 2,000 word article, will Google see this as duplicate content? Thanks in advance for any helpful insight.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewv0 -
Backlinking from a Canonical Page to the Non-Canonical Doman - Wrong Signals?
Hi Mozzers, Let's say you have www.mysite.com/page, which is a duplicate of www.yoursite.com/page. www.yousite.com/page has a rel canonical link identifying www.mysite.com/page as the original source. www.mysite.com/page has a followed backlink going towards www.yousite.com/home-page. mysite.com has a DA of 44
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W
yoursite.com has a DA of 33 Google has chosen to index www.yoursite.com/page instead of www.mysite.com/page. Is the followed backlink responsible for the wrong page being indexed? Thanks!0 -
Bad use of the Rel="canonical" tag
Google is currently ranking my category page instead of our homepage for our key term and we would rather have our homepage rank for the term. Would it be a bad idea to rel="canonical" our category page to our homepage? Our homepage is optimized to rank for the keyword and has more PR than our category page. However, I don't really know if this will have negative repercussions. Thanks, Jason
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jason_3420 -
Could a HTML <select>with large numbers of <option value="<url>">'s affect my organic rankings</option></select>
Hi there, I'm currently redesigning my website, and one particular pages lists hotels in New York. Some functionality I'm thinking of adding in is to let the user find hotels close to specific concert venues in New York. My current thinking is to provide the following select element on the page - selecting any one of the options will automatically redirect to my page for that concert venue. The purpose of this isn't to affect the organic traffic - I'm simply introducing this as a tool to help customers find the right hotel, but I certainly don't want it to have an adverse effect on my organic traffic. I'd love to know your thoughts on this. I must add that in certain cities, such as New York, there could be up to 450 different options in this select element. | <select onchange="location=options[selectedIndex].value;"> <option value="">Show convenient hotels for:</option> <option value="http://url1..">1492 New York</option> <option value="http://url2..">Abrons Arts Center</option> <option value="http://url3..">Ace of Clubs New York</option> <option value="http://url4..">Affairs Afloat</option> <option value="http://url5..">Affirmation Arts New York</option> <option value="http://url6..">Al Hirschfeld Theatre</option> <option value="http://url7..">Alice Tully Hall</option> .. .. ..</select> Many thanks Mike |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mjk260 -
On page report card for the keyword "computers"
I was looking at which websites ranks in the TOP 3 for the keyword "computers"... I noticed that first is wikipedia and then there are Dell and Apple... I then did an on page report card and I noticed that wikipedia has a grade A (which is great ) However, Apple has an F ( which sucks !! ) but there still rank out there. My question is why is Apple ranking for the keyword computers with no tiitle, no URL, no H1, no body, no B/Strong... when wikipedia has all of that and the term " computers " occurs 290 times on its page... Is is due to the fact that apple has millions of external links and is that enough to rank even with an " irrelevant " page ? By the way I have noticed that on other keywords such as " bicycle ". Wikipedia is ranking 1 st and then sites like www.trekbikes.com are out there but they shouldn't based on their homepage "optimization ". I know there are other factors but I am just trying to figure why such sites ( like apple or trek bikes ) rank out there. Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0