Canonical rel
-
I am having a few issues understanding the whole report card and canonical issue.
I have a wordpress blog www.theseolab.com.au. When i created the blog i had setup http://theseolab.com.au and i thought that was my mistake. When i ran the on page report for www.theseolab.com.au . It said that my canonical was http://theseolab.com. So i changed it and my canonical points to http://www.theseolab.com.au.
5 days later i run the on page again and it still says that there are issues and it still shows that my website canonical is not pointing to the right link.
Does it take time to update or am i missing something?
-
Hey Guys,
Thanks for all the reposes. I have changed it and it seems that the on page optimizer is still using the cashed version. The problem is that it's been almost 6 days
I might try and send an email to the help
-
Hi Olivier,
Thanks for the question!
I reviewed your site (www.theseolab.com.au) and your canonical does look like it's set up correctly. To test out the On-Page tool, I ran a quick query and it showed the same result:
http://screencast.com/t/7omcKndhx
The only thing I can think of is that you saw a cached version of the On-Page report, but those are usually cleared within 48 hours so that shouldn't be the case here. If you see this again, I'd recommend reaching out to help[at]moz.com with an example so we can try and repro this for you.
Hope this helps and let us know if there's anything else you need. Thanks!
Best,
Sam
Moz Helpster -
Hi Olivier,
Just to add to what the guys have said, with a www. and non-www. version of the website, you should really 301 redirect one to the other (I'd always choose to redirect to the www version but you can choose).
-
Yes, i thought so too. I am using the on page report card
I'll wait for the next crawl and see what it says
-
I found this code rel="canonical" href="http://www.theseolab.com.au/" /> in your source which indicates that rel canonical is setup-ed correctly!
I am not sure what tool you are using to check but if you are using Moz and it is displaying something like this, it is not normal... you either should wait till the next crawl or email to their support for that!
hope this helps!
-
Have checked, your canonical page is marked correctly, You should install Moz Toolbar Extension for Chrome & Firefox so as to check details by your side only for future reference
This is the details
Page Attributes Data Meta Robots Not Found Rel="canonical" http://www.theseolab.com.au/ Page Load Time 6.51s Google Cache URL http://google.com/search?q=cache:http://www.theseolab.com.au/ IP Address 180.235.128.118 Country Australia
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 non-canonical pages need to worry about things like Alt Text, H1 tags, etc?
Just wanted to confirm, if we have multiple similar pages, with all of their canonicals pointing towards the prime page, does it impact SEO rankings at all if the non-canonical pages were missing alt text from their images, or shared duplicate or multiple H1 tags? Basic SEO page construction stuff? I know some will hurt user CTR but wanted to make sure that SEO crawlers don't care about them even if indexed.
On-Page Optimization | | SimonZM2 -
Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag. We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong? Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time. A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these. Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
Canonical tags in the body?
Hi there, Does anyone know if placing canonical tags in the body instead of the header of a page will still "take"? The system we are on means that making an editable header is no easy business and I was just wondering how big of a difference it makes to have it in a different area. Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | Whittie0 -
Need Suggestion for Canonical Page
Hello, I am bit confused about whether to use a Canonical URL on a page or not? Actually, the project I am working on is having two pages with most similar content. The only difference between them is that only 1 paragraph of 50-60 words is different. I am not sure, whether to put a canonical URL on the another version of the page. [Note: Sorry, can't put the site URL due to some restrictions.]
On-Page Optimization | | Anup_More0 -
Is reported duplication on the pages or their canonical pages?
There are several sections getting flagged for duplication on one of our sites: http://mysite.com/section-1/?something=X&confirmed=true
On-Page Optimization | | Safelincs
http://mysite.com/section-2/?something=X&confirmed=true
http://mysite.com/section-3/?something=X&confirmed=true Each of the above are showing as having duplicates of the other sections. Indeed, these pages are exactly the same (it's just an SMS confirmation page you enter your code in), however, they all have canonical links back to the section (without the query string), i.e. section-1, section-2 and section-3 respectively. These three sections have unique content and aren't flagged up for duplications themselves, so my questions are: Are the pages with the query strings the duplicates, and if so why are the canonical links being ignored? or Are the canonical pages without the query strings the duplicates, and if so why don't they appear as URLs in their own right in the duplicate content report? I am guessing it's the former, but I can't figure out why it would ignore the canonical links. Any ideas? Thanks0 -
Rel canonical Issue
I have a huge rel canonical issue showing up on my website, and I'm not sure that I fully understand why. To my knowledge, this is something that comes about when alternate urls are used to link to the same page. However, this is not a technique that I've used with my website, yet it's still raising a flag on just about every page. http://bit.ly/jYyTYN Can anyone enlighten me on what's causing this? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | JayAdams320 -
Why is On-Page showing canonical wrong?
I'm trying to use the On-Page report card and it's saying that my rel=canonical is wrong, I've looked and I can't see anything wrong with it, am I missing something? The url is www.harrisonlighting.co.uk/childrens-lights.html
On-Page Optimization | | HarrisonLighting0 -
Almost all pages showing under Notices Rel Canonical - why???
Hi, I'm just going through my latest crawl since my new site launch and havce noticed almost all of my websites pages are listed under the notices rel canonical section, Why is this? All pages have the unique pages titles followed by the site name in the title, for example: Product | Site name All pages have unique meta descriptions and content (although we only offer lots of differt varients of the same product). Is this something I should be worried about?
On-Page Optimization | | EclipseLegal0