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
-
How to deal with rel=canonical when using POST parameters
Hi there,
On-Page Optimization | | mjk26
I currently have a number of URLs throughout my site of the form: https://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/o2-academy-islington-hotels/256133#checkin_4-21-2024&checkout_4-22-2024&rooms_1&guests_2&artistid_15878:256133 This sends the user through to a page showing hotels near the O2 Academy Islington. Once the page loads, my code looks at the parameters specified in the # part of the URL, and uses them to fill in a form, before submitting the form as a POST. This basically reloads the page, but checks the availability of the hotels first, and therefore returns slightly different content to the "canonical" version of this page (which simply lists the hotels before any availability checks done). Until now, I've marked the page that has had availability checks as noindex,follow. But because the form was submitted with POST parameters, the URL looks exactly like the canonical one. So the two URLs are identical, but due to POST parameters, the content is slightly different. Does that make sense? My question is, should both versions of this page be marked as index,follow? Thanks
Mike0 -
Canonical question - Would this create some sort of crawler redirection loop?
What happens if a canonical link, links to the url with / but the main url does not have the / For example: rel="canonical" href="https://www.exampleURL.co.uk/"> Main URL - https://www.exampleURL.co.uk (without the /) 301 Redirect https://www.exampleURL.co.uk/ to https://www.exampleURL.co.uk Would this create some sort of crawler redirection loop?
On-Page Optimization | | Evosite10 -
Canonical in Shop Areas of an E-commerce Site. When and Where?
Hi Guys. A quick one about duplicate content... So we have a lot of pages that are very similar on our site, but are actually different products. e.g) Our Fortnight view refills and our week to view refills. Our MOZ report defines this as duplicate content. Question: Would a canonical tag be the way to go to 'remove' this duplicate content? And if so, which page should it point back to? Just picking one of the products? Or the higher level Landing page? Many thanks in advance... Isaac.
On-Page Optimization | | isaac6630 -
I still don't understand how rel=canonical works. Help?
So here's the deal. I write for many different outlets. I also have many different pages on my blog that have duplicates (authorized, of course). On my blog, I have many different pages that redirect to "the original" content. I've only recently discovered the existence of rel=canonical. However I don't understand how it works. I have very specific questions. Can anyone help? If, on my blog, I have a blog post that's the original. And another website has the same content, used with authorization. If I want to tell search engines that the original content is on MY blog, what can I do? Is the only solution to ask the owner of the other blog to add a rel=canonical in the header of the specific post? If, on my blog, I have a blog post that's NOT the original. Do I simply add rel=canonical to the header, then add a link to the original in the body? If, on my blog, I have THE FIRST 300 WORDS of a blog post, then add a link saying "to read the whole article, click here" with a link pointing to the original, do I need to have a rel=canonical tag somewhere? Does it HAVE to be in the header? Can rel=canonical be used in the - What penalties are included with having duplicate content of my work everywhere on the web? I've been trying to find specifics, but can't. Thanks for the help. I'm quite confused, as you can see.
On-Page Optimization | | cedriklizotte0 -
Ecommerce Canonical Question
Hi all, first question (eek) Could I pick the brains of fellow users around an issue we are having with canonical urls on a magento website. At the moment we do not have these enabled as it seems to break our indexing. Cut a long story short, we have thousands of products but haven't rewritten many of the descriptions from the manufacturers yet and so have noindexed all the product pages (freeing them as we go). The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site. For example, if you go to Dresses, there then are several filtering options which would allow you to choose a colour, shape and material - if you wished to filter that precisely. These filtering options are all crawlable and so we would then have a page that google could index for, for example, Green Lace Maxi Dress. All good there, few people search for specific products and a lot search for types of products so we are covered. To get back to the issue at hand. If we enable the canonical option on our magento plugin it will stop us from being able to target these terms. Whereas the filtering option would create domain.com/dress/green/maxi/lace with the page title of Green Lace Maxi Dress, if we enable the canonical part of the seo plugin the canonical link which would be added to the page would be - instantly removing our ability to rank for longer tail dress related searches (we are not going to compete with the big players on the premium terms, yet!). There are alternative plugins we can buy for magento to add the correct tag, however, if every page's canonical just points back it itself like this, is there really much point spending nearly $1000 on the 4 licences we would need to cover our range of sites. Is it really necessary, in this case, that we have a canonical for the product filtering? Sorry for the long post, hope it made sense. Thanks for any assistance.
On-Page Optimization | | DSCarl0 -
Rel-canonical
Hi, I am a bit confused. A potential clients website has three versions: http://www. http:// http://dev. In each version they have used the rel=canonical back to each base version. So http://www." http://" http://dev." I would have expected duplicate content but I see only one version of the content when I check using "....." in Google. Using the site: tool I see that all three versions are indexed. When moving through the navigation on them, they all redirect to the one home page - the www version. Any idea what is going on and what should be recommended?Redirecting all versions to the www. version? Is it a problem?
On-Page Optimization | | AL123al0 -
Canonical tag?
I have an e-commerce website and the query strings of the URL's are causing duplicate content/titles. I'm thinking of adding a site-wide canonical tag which should fix them all. Any other ideas of making it neater or better?
On-Page Optimization | | KarlBantleman0 -
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