Rel canonical
-
Hi,
Since we sorted all duplication issues using the rel canonical tag in the home page, and redirects in the htaccess file, our Moz Ranking has dropped markedly (possibly because there are now less apparent links on our site. At the same time our rankings and traffic from Google have dropped markedly.
I notice that none of our top ranking competitors are using the rel canonical tag in the source on their home pages.
We have just performed the same seo strategy on another unrelated site with the same immediate drop in MOZ ranking.
-
Thanks Peter,
I will check this out further
-
I can't think of any reason using canonicals would impact your Domain Authority in our metrics (again, unless something went horribly wrong). My best guess is that this is a coincidence and you've got something else going on, likely something related to your link profile.
-
Hi, Thanks to both Peter & Jarno for their replies.
I must apologise in that I meant that the Domain Authority, as measured in the Competitive Domain Analysis, which has suffered principally in each case the actual Domain Mozrank has only changed a little.
Yes I am sure we are using the rel canonical tag correctly. We got this information from SEOMOZ forum and checked it out independently. Removing the duplication resulted in the correct number of files being seen.
Howard
-
Just to second @Jarno - my immediate reaction is that the implementation went very wrong (which is far too easy when you're messing with .htaccess). The only times I've seen rel=canonical harm a site's rankings is when an implementation cause a ton of non-identical pages to be canonical'ed to just a few pages.
It depends a lot on scale, too. Google has had issues with very large-scale 301 redirect implementations, for example - especially if the 301s don't seem to be appropriate or are just to consolidate authority. I expect them to crack down more on that.
When you say "Moz Ranking", do you mean the MozRank metric, or the actual search rankings as measured by our tools?
-
are you sure you are using the rel=canonical in the right way? You should include it linking to your own page and on page duplicates so you let the search engines know what page is the original one. If there only is one copy op the page you could debate the fact that the rel=canonical isn't necessary for that page.
For instance: If you have 3 pages about vacuum cleaners and page A is the original one then you include a rel=canonical on page A, B and C all pointing to page A
But what if you only have page A? Why should it then link to page A telling that this is the original post? There's only one page about the subject so that makes it the original post right?
I feel pretty strong about using code that has a use for it. For instance, the keyword tag is no longer used by search engines only by your competitors, so why use it? If you only have one page about a specific subject, why use the rel=canonical? The only reason I can come up with is that when someone duplicates your page they include the tag pointing to your site.
Misuse of technical solutions for specific issues doesn't seem right to me. You can use a car, but if you drive to fast or on the wrong lane you're misusing the technical solution for transporting yourself of goods from location A to B and if you get caught doing so, you will be punished. Right?
Hope i made some sense to you.
Any other thoughts on this matter?
regards
Jarno
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
-
Canonicals from sub-domain to main domain: How much content relevancy matters? Any back-links impact?
Hi Moz community, I have this different scenario of using canonicals to solve the duplicate content issue in our site. Our subdomain and main domain have similar landing pages of same topics with content relevancy about 50% to 70%. Both pages will be in SERP and confusing users; possibly search engine too. We would like solve this by using canonicals on subdomain pointing to main domain pages. Even our intention is to only to show main domain pages in SERP. I wonder how Google handles it? Will the canonicals will be respected with this content relevancy? What happens if they don't respect? Just ignore or penalise for trying to do this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Do we have any risk or penalty for double canonicals?
Hi all, We have double canonicals. From page A to page B to Page C. Will this be Okay for Google? Or definitely we need to make it A to C and B to C? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
If my article is reposted on another blog, using re=canonical, does that count as a link back?
Hey all! My company blog is interested in letting another blog repost our article. We would ask them to use "re-canonical" in the mark-up to avoid Google digging through "duplicate" info out there. I was wondering, if the other site does use the "re=canonical", will that appear as a backlink or no? I understand that metrics will flow back to my original URL and not the canonical one, but I am wondering if the repost will additionally show as a backlink. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | cmguidry0 -
Canonical Tag on All Pages
This is a new one for me. I have a client that has a canonical tag on almost every page of their site. Even on pages that don't need it. For example on http://www.client.com/examplex they had code: Maybe I have missed something, but is there a reason for this? Does this hurt the ranking of the page?
Algorithm Updates | | smulto0 -
Canonical URLs being ignored?
Hi Guys, Has anybody noticed canonical URLs being ignored where they were previously obeyed? I have a site that is doing this at the moment and just wondered if this was being seen elsewhere and if anyone knows what the solution is? Thanks, Elias
Algorithm Updates | | A_Q0 -
Wordpress Canonical Tag Pointing to Same Page
So I noticed on a few of my clients wordpress tags (via moz) that there are canonical tags on URLs, pointing to that same URL. What is the point of that, and is it harming the website? Is this being done automatically via a plugin? Should I remove the canonical tags or leave as is?
Algorithm Updates | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Large site with faceted navigation using rel=canonical, but Google still has issues
First off, I just wanted to mention I did post this on one other forum so I hope that is not completely against the rules here or anything. Just trying to get an idea from some of the pros at both sources. Hope this is received well. Now for the question..... "Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site:" Gotta love these messages in GWT. Anyway, I wanted to get some other opinions here so if anyone has experienced something similar or has any recommendations I would love to hear them. First off, the site is very large and utilizes faceted navigation to help visitors sift through results. I have implemented rel=canonical for many months now to have each page url that is created based on the faceted nav filters, push back to the main category page. However, I still get these damn messages from Google every month or so saying that they found too many pages on the site. My main concern obviously is wasting crawler time on all these pages that I am trying to do what they ask in these instances and tell them to ignore and find the content on page x. So at this point I am thinking about possibly using robots.txt file to handle these, but wanted to see what others around here thought before I dive into this arduous task. Plus I am a little ticked off that Google is not following a standard they helped bring to the table. Thanks for those who take the time to respond in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | PeteGregory0 -
Rel="author" - This could be KickAss!
Google is now encouraging webmasters to attribute content to authors with rel="author". You can read what google has to say about it here and here. A quote from one of google's articles.... When Google has information about who wrote a piece of content on the web, we may look at it as a signal to help us determine the relevance of that page to a user’s query. This is just one of many signals Google may use to determine a page’s relevance and ranking, though, and we’re constantly tweaking and improving our algorithm to improve overall search quality. I am guessing that google might use it like this..... If you have several highly successful articles about "widgets", your author link on each of them will let google know that you are a widget expert. Then when you write future articles about widgets, google will rank them much higher than normal - because google knows you are an authority on that topic. If it works this way the rel="author" attribute could be the equivalent of a big load of backlinks for highly qualified authors. What do you think about this? Valuable? Also, do you think that there is any way that google could be using this as a "content registry" that will foil some attempts at content theft and content spinning? Any ideas welcome! Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | EGOL3