canonical URL tag
-
Hello,
I was checking my ON page SEO,
and one of the things i see
Number of Canonical tags 2
Remove all but a single canonical URL tag
I didn't fully understand, what is canonical URL tag?
my website is http://novitasalonandspa.com
Thanks for help
-
It's usually automatic. So you might've have a plugin like SEO all in one or Yoast that added the canonical URL.
I'm guessing thats the reason.
-
Thanks a lot, it was in the header so i removed it,
so is it something that i have to do it all the time?
how this ended up in the header anyways?
Thanks again big help!
-
I can't remember off the top of my head but I believe it should be in sidebar when in wp-admin.
It should be under EDIT or Template. It is where it shows you all the HTML and CSS files. You can just go into 'yourtemplatename.html' and look for the canonical link and remove it.
The page you do that in has a big text box and on the right side a list of all the HTML and CSS files. I believe that is the spot, I don't have access to any WP domain ATM so can't give you direct names and tabs. But its there.
-
Hello, Im really appreciate for detailed answer.
But how do i find these "canonical tags" in wp because seomoz tells me i have 2?
Thanks again
-
Hello, Im really appreciate for detailed answer.
But how do i find these "canonical tags" in wp because seomoz tells me i have 2?
Thanks again
-
A canonical tag is to tell the search engines which version of the page should be indexed. Each page should have only one. For example, let's say http://www.example.com/index.php and http://www.example.com/index.php?utm=whatever are the exact same page except with different URLs, you will put the following canonical tag in the HEAD of this page -
This tells the search engines to ignore http://www.example.com/index.php?utm=whatever so they don't put that URL in the search engine results instead of your actual homepage.
-
That means you have two canonical tags in your code.
Canonical tags basically means which link is the primary link. This prevents Google from affecting your rankings due to duplicate pages.
I.E.
Page 1 = Original Link
Page 2 = Similar to Page 1 - Could be mistaken as duplicate page
You put a Canonical tag for Page 2 and reference Page 1 as the original.
For Google's interpretation: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
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
-
Do we need rel="prev" and rel="next" if we have a rel="canonical" for the first page of a series
Despite having a canonical on page 1 of a series of paginated pages for different topics, Google is indexing several, sometimes many pages in each topic. This is showing up as duplicate page title issues in Moz and Screaming Frog. Ideally Google would only index the first page in the series. Do we need to use rel="prev" etc rather than a canonical on page 1? How can we make sure Google crawls but doesn't index the rest of the series?
Moz Pro | | hjsand1 -
Spammy Directories Using Title Meta-Tag For Link
I've been noticing a growing amount of spammy directories using my title Meta-Tag to create a link back to my site. Since my title uses competitive keywords, these external links on spammy directories look over optimized and I fear an algo penalty might get triggered. Should I be concerned and what can I do?
Moz Pro | | alrockn0 -
15-20 images on a page / Alt Tag them or not with the keyword phrase?
I have a site that easily has 15-20 images per product page, giving the users ideas of what they can do with the product design. All of them have an alt tag with the keyword phrase in it. There is also an H1, H2, sometimes an H3, body copy with the keyword phrase 1-3 times, bold when it seems like a good time to emphasize it. Just in the images alone, we've exceeded the recommended 15 keyword phrases on a page. Moz On Page Grader says the following: Avoid Keyword Stuffing in Document We've seen evidence that excessive use of keywords can negatively impact rankings and thus suggest moderation. Recommendation: Remove instances of the targeted keyword(s) from the document text of this page to bring it below 15 What's the recommendation for the image alt tags? We'd like the images to show up in Google Images, so they should have the tag, right? What's the right way to handle this for SEO purposes? Someone's suggested naming 1/2 of the images one keyword phrase, and the other 1/2 an altogether different one, not searched nearly as often as the primary keyword phrase.
Moz Pro | | INCart0 -
Is there a way to get SEOMOZ to not throw an error if i'm using the rel=canonical tag?
There are so many errors (~1500) that I can't find the pages with duplicate content among the ones that are correctly tagged
Moz Pro | | seospeedwagon0 -
Why does Rel Canonical show up as a notice?
In the crawl diagnostics screen "Rel Canonical" shows up as a notice for every page that has a rel="canonical" meta tag in it. Why is this the case? Shouldn't every page have a canonical tag on it to show the absolute URL to the content? Wouldn't a better notice be to display pages that do not have a canonical tag instead? I could be wrong but that would make more sense to me. (In fact.. let's be honest here.. I probably am wrong.. but I'd like someone to explain it if they could.) Thanks
Moz Pro | | rrolfe1 -
Will SEOMoz offer URL data relating to Bot visits
Does SEOMoz in the future plan to report on Bot visits for each URL, when they are spidered and when they appear in for example Google's index ?
Moz Pro | | NeilTompkins0 -
Can someone explain why I have been seeing an increase in the number of Linking Page URLs in OSE that link directly to downloads?
Ever since the last couple Linkscape updates when doing competitive back link analysis I have noticed a large increase in the number of URLs of Linking Pages in OSE that result in an immediate file download. The majority of the time these downloads are not common files ie PDF, DOC files. For example, these were all in a competitors back link profile: http://download.unesp.br/linux/debian/pool/main/i/isc-dhcp/isc-dhcp-relay-dbg_4.1.1-P1-17_ia64.deb http://snow.fmi.fi/data/20090210_eurasia_sd_025grid.mat http://www.rose-hulman.edu/class/me/HTML/ES204_0708_S/working model examples/Le25 mad hatter.wm?a=p&id=145880&g=5&p=sia&date=iso&o=ajgrep These are just a few I came across for a single competitor. Is this sketchy black hat SEO, some sort of error, actual links, or something else? Any information on this subject would be helpful. Thank you.
Moz Pro | | Gyi0 -
Rel=canonical
Hi, there is something puzzling us about the rel=canonical reports... On the general report that is generated after the system crawls our site, we have blue flags on the rel=canonical tag, but the flags don't actually specify exactly what is wrong, they just say: "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical." so we presumed that we should take the rel=canonical tag out of our pages, and after we did so, we noticed that the on-page-report-card (the one that shows up when you run the keyword page optimization tool from the research tools) says (close to the bottom of the report) that we should have 1 canonical tag on each page. So right now we're confused, the general website crawl report flags the rel canonical as being bad and then the on page report flags not having them, we don't really know what to do, should we keep the rel=canonical or not? We are using wordpress to power our site, wordpress has a built-in system for generating the rel canonical for each page, I've checked that and the tags are being generated properly, but we have no idea why the general website report flags them in blue, the error message is not too comprehensive. Any help or information you could provide would be much appreciated. Our website is taxproblem.org thanks.
Moz Pro | | joemas990