Canonical question
-
I have at least three duplicate main pages on my website:
www.augustbullocklaw.com/index
I want the first one, www.augustbullocklaw.com to be the main page. I put this code on the index page and uploaded it to my site: http://www.augustbullocklaw.com/canonical-version-of-page/" rel="canonical" />
This code now appears on all three pages shown above. Did I do this correctly?
I surmise that www.augustbullocklaw.com is pointing to itself. Is that ok?
I don't know how to take the cononical code off the page that is the page I want to be the main page. (I don't know how to remove it from www.augustbullocklaw.com, but leave it on www.augustbullocklaw.com/index and augustbullocklaw.com)
Thanks
-
Thank you very much for that clear answer!
-
Hi August,
You've made a small error; it looks like you've used the rel canonical example from here; http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content. The "canonical-version-of-page" there is supposed to be an example of a folder on the site and shouldn't be literal, so the code on your page should be:
Where the value inside the 'href' part is the URL to the page you wish to be the canonical version. I hope that makes sense!
What Francisco is suggesting is an alternative, and often preferred, method of handling this scenario, where a user trying to visit the other (non-canonical) versions of this URL would be redirected automatically by their browser to the canonical version. This does have some advantages but I'd say it isn't significant enough for you to worry about.
Best of luck!
-
301 redirects within .htaccess. I don't have a step by step because you can google it and get the code.
-
I can't understand that at all.
Are you (or someone) able to explain step by step what to do.
How exactly does one point the non-www to the www?
-
This is an .htaccess issue. You want to point the non-www to the www. This is not a canonical issue.
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
-
Rel="canonical" in hyperlink
Inside my website, I use the rel = "canonical" but I do not use it in the but in a hyperlink. Now it is not clear to me if that goes well. See namely different stories about the Internet. My example below link: Bruiloft
Technical SEO | | NECAnGeL0 -
Canonicals
We have a client that has his products listed on 20+ different websites, including 4 of his own. Also, he only has 1 of everything, so once he sells it then the product is gone. To battle this duplication issue, plus having a short internet lifespan of less than 4 weeks, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to canonical the products back to the category page. Kind of like using canonical tags on your "used blue widget" and "used red widget" pages back to the "used widgets" page. Would this help with the duplicate content issues? Is this a proper use of a canonical?
Technical SEO | | WhoWuddaThunk0 -
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 -
2 questions about linkbuilding
1. Are these types of sites bad to submit a link to? http://www.mompack.com/mom2mom/ 2. If I submit my product for another blog to review (in turn they write a post for me with links to my website), is this GOOD? Look forward to hearing back from you, thanks
Technical SEO | | ChrisTS0 -
Canonical solution for query strings?
Greetings, The Hotel company where I'm employed uses query strings in it's url's to track customers. The query strings are integrated into our property management system, and they help identify who we need to pay commissions to, so they aren't going anywhere. While I understand that session variables could have been a better solution, I sort of inherited this problem. The issue I'm running into is that my Webmaster tools picks up these query strings as actual url's. So for instance: www.url.com/index.php?P_SOURCE=WBFQ Seems like a duplicate page of my root, and like wise for all my other pages that use our booking widget. So, Is there a canonical solution to this issue? or would 301/302's be the only solution. Also, we may have 10 different but specific query strings to put into our urls. Would the 301/302 approach cause any server issues for say 10 pages? So 10 pages x 10 access codes = a lot of redirects. Thanks in advance, Cyril
Technical SEO | | Nola5040 -
Google +1 not recognizing rel-canonical
So I have a few pages with the same content just with a different URL. http://nadelectronics.com/products/made-for-ipod/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System http://nadelectronics.com/products/speakers/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System http://nadelectronics.com/products/digital-music/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System All pages rel-canonical to:
Technical SEO | | kevin4803
http://nadelectronics.com/products/made-for-ipod/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System My question is... why can't google + (or facebook and twitter for that matter) consolidate all these pages +1. So if the first two had 5 +1 and the rel-canonical page had 5 +1's. It would be nice for all pages to display 15 +1's not 5 on each. It's my understanding that Google +1 will gives the juice to the correct page. So why not display all the +1's at the same time. Hope that makes sense.0 -
Robots.txt and canonical tag
In the SEOmoz post - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/robot-access-indexation-restriction-techniques-avoiding-conflicts, it's being said - If you have a robots.txt disallow in place for a page, the canonical tag will never be seen. Does it so happen that if a page is disallowed by robots.txt, spiders DO NOT read the html code ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Pages not ranking - Linkbuilding Question
It has been about 3 months since we made some new pages, with new, unique copy, but alot of pages (even though they have been indexed) are not ranking in the SERPS I tested it by taking a long snippet of the unique copy form the page and searching for it on Google. Also I checked the ranking using http://arizonawebdevelopment.com/google-page-rank
Technical SEO | | Impact-201555
Which may no be accurate, I know, but would give some indication. The interesting thing was that for the unique copy snippets, sometimes a different page of our site, many times the home page, shows up in the SERP'sSo my questions are: Is there some issue / penalty / sandbox deal with the pages that are not indexed? How can we check that? Or has it just not been enough time? Could there be any duplicate copy issue going on? Shouldn't be, as they are all well written, completely unique copy. How can we check that? Flickr image details - Some of the pages display the same set of images from flickr. The details (filenames, alt info, titles) are getting pulled form flickr and can be seen on the source code. Its a pretty large block of words, which is the same on multiple pages, and uses alot of keywords. Could this be an issue considered duplication or keyword stuffing, causing this. If you think so , we will remove it right away. And then when do we do to improve re-indexing? The reason I started this was because we have a few good opportunities right now for links, and I was wondering what pages we should link to and try to build rankings for. I was thinking about pointing one to /cast-bronze-plaques, but the page is not ranking. The home page, obviously is the oldest page, and ranked the best. The cast bronze plaques page is very new. Would linking to pages that are not ranking well be a good idea? Would it help them to get indexed / ranking? Or would it be better to link to the pages that are already indexed / ranking? If you link to a page that does not seem to be indexed, will it help the domains link profile? Will the link juice still flow through the site0