Rel=Canonical Help
-
The site in question is www.example.com/example. The client has added a rel=canonical tag to this page as . In other words, instead of putting the tag on the pages that are not to be canonical and pointing them to this one, they are doing it backwards and putting the same URL as the canonical one as the page they are putting the tag on. They have done this with thousands of pages.
I know this is incorrect, but my question is, until the issue is resolved, are these tags hurting them at all just being there?
-
Thanks, at least I know that it's not creating any big issues for the time being until we get it all cleaned up. Thanks again for your help!
-
Oh, so it's site-wide... got it. The issue is that you're basically sending Google a signal that the non-canonical URLs are canonical. It's not a disaster, but it would be better to remove them temporarily, until you can put the correct tags in place.
-
They put the tag on almost every page on the site, thinking it would solve their duplicate content issues, but they didn't realize that the tage needed to go on the non-canonical pages. Basically, every page has the tag with the same URL that the tag is on.
-
I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding the situation - did they just put the canonical tag on the one page? Does that page drive any other content/URLs ("page" is a bit of a loaded term, since one file could create 100s of URLs that Google can crawl)?
If they simply added it to one page and the canonical references itself, there shouldn't be any harm. It sounds like this page is the canonical version, so you're really just telling Google that. It's not necessary, in most cases, but it's not a problem.
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
-
Please let me know if I am in a right direction with fixing rel="canonical" issue?
While doing my website crawl, I keep getting the message that I have tons of duplicated pages.
Technical SEO | | kirupa
http://example.com/index.php and http://www.example.com/index.php are considered to be the duplicates. As I figured out this one: http://example.com/index.php is a canonical page, and I should point out this one: http://www.example.com/index.php to it. Could you please let me know if I will do a right thing if I put this piece of code into my index.php file?
? Or I should use this one:0 -
Help regarding updated content
Hi, Some time back we created tutorials on a test tool Quality Center (http://www.guru99.com/quality-center-tutorials.html) which now needs upgrading.
Technical SEO | | Riya8520
Currently the tool has been renamed to HP ALM.
Our dilemma is whether we should create new pages for the new tutorials or update the existing tutorials itself ? To add to our pain, most of the end users still refer the new ALM with its old name Quality Center. Also we here hit by penguin 2.1 and since then have been very precautions from SEO standpoint.
Please help
Regards
Krishna Rungta0 -
Canonicalization help
Hi Moz Community, If I have two different sub-category pages: http://www.example.com/rings/anniversary-rings/
Technical SEO | | IceIcebaby
http://www.example.com/wedding/anniversary-rings/ And the first one is ranking for all KWs, should I add a rel=canonical to the second URL or leave it since it's slightly different? Or should I try and create different unique content for the second URL? Everything in terms of content is the same on both these pages except for the URLs, which aren't that different to begin with. Thanks for your help! -Reed0 -
Duplication, pagination and the canonical
Hi all, and thank you in advance for your assistance. We have an issue of paginated pages being seen as duplicates by pro.moz crawlers. The paginated pages do have duplicated by content, but are not duplicates of each other. Rather they pull through a summary of the product descriptions from other landing pages on the site. I was planing to use rel=canonical to deal with them, however I am concerned as the paginated pages are not identical to each other, but do feature their own set of duplicate content! We have a similar issue with pages that are not paginated but feature tabs that alter the URL parameters like so: ?st=BlueWidgets ?st=RedSocks ?st=Offers These are being seen as duplicates of the main URL, and again all feature duplicate content pulled from elsewhere in the site, but are not duplicates of each other. Would a canonical tag be suitable here? Many Thanks
Technical SEO | | .egg0 -
I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem." Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority." So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too 🙂 Dana
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
After I 301 redirect duplicate pages to my rel=canonical page, do I need to add any tags or code to the non canonical pages?
I have many duplicate pages. Some pages have 2-3 duplicates. Most of which have Uppercase and Lowercase paths (generated by Microsoft IIS). Does this implementation of 301 and rel=canonical suffice? Or is there more I could do to optimize the passing of duplicate page link juice to the canonical. THANK YOU!
Technical SEO | | PFTools0 -
Canonical tags
Hi there, I have just noticed that SEOmoz picked up some duplicates links that I would like to resolve but not sure how. For example, the "Finding work in the arts" article has two links: http://www.creative-choices.co.uk/develop-your-career/article/finding-work-in-the-arts http://www.creative-choices.co.uk/develop-your-career/article/finding-work-in-the-arts?utm_source=Website&utm_medium=Website&utm_content=Finding+work+in+the+arts&utm_campaign=Footer+Links Both links can be found on this page http://www.creative-choices.co.uk/industry-news-views/article/what-employers-are-looking-for (see attachment). Would automatically generated canonical tags by the CMS solve this issue? rmxiP
Technical SEO | | CreativeChoices0 -
Should Canonical URLs be used in Wordpress?
Wordpress offers Canonical URLs in the "All in one SEO" settings. I know that canonical tags for page content will cause the search engine to ignore the content, but I don't understand this setting in Wordpress. The Canonical URLs box for my blog had been checked until a couple weeks ago. I unchecked it (removing the canonical tag) and now I have about 300 duplicate content pages acccording to my SEOMoz reports. It appears that it's just the blog tag in the url now that is causing the confusion. Here's an example of the same url with two tags: http://www.rmtracking.com/blog/tag/aclu/ http://www.rmtracking.com/blog/tag/rfid/ Should I activate the canonical URL setting in Wordpress again. If not, how can I fix this? Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Regards, Brad
Technical SEO | | BradBorst0