Canonicalisation
-
Hi
Im looking at a clients site canonicalisation usage and in regard to some comments the tags referential value is a node (not the same as the actual page url) does this make sense or sounds like incorrect usage ?
For example:
URL ** ** Canonical Tag
domain.com/comment/6 domain.com/node/21
Cheers
Dan
-
Just to clarify. You have a main page or node page, and off of that node page you have various comment pages that are commenting on the node page. The comment pages are canonical linking to the main page.
I would say this does not make sense. You would want the comment pages to rank potentially or at least add more to the main page. I would consider making the comments on the same page as the node page - much like they do on Moz. Or if you had to break them out, I would make them paginated pages off the main page and then use rel next prev to show the relation to the main page.
Google treats the canonical like a 301 and it usually means that something is a copy of the original. As new comments are not copies of the original and actually may add to the main page, using the canonical does not make sense.
Different example, I use canonicals for the printer friendly version of a page. It is a duplicate and I want to make it clear why and which one is more important for ranking.
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
-
Canonicalisation and Dynamic Pages
We have an e-commerce single page app hosted at https://www.whichledlight.com and part of this site is our search results page (http://www.whichledlight.com/t/gu10-led-bulbs?fitting_eq=GU10). To narrow down products on the results we make heavy use of query parameters. From an SEO perspective we are telling GoogleBot to not index pages that include these query parameters to prevent duplicate content issues and to not index pages where the combination of query parameters has resulted in no results being returned. The only exception to this is the page parameter. We are posting here to check our homework so to speak. Does the above sound sensible? Although we have told GoogleBot to not index these pages, Moz will still crawl them (to the best of my knowledge), so we will continue to see crawl errors within our Moz reports where in fact these issues don't exist. Is this true? Is there anyway to make Moz ignore pages with certain query parameters? Any other suggestions to improve the SEO of our results pages is most appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | TrueluxGroup0 -
Can hreflang replace canonicalisation ?
Hi Im working with a site that has ALOT of duplicate content and have recommended developer fix via correct use of Canonicalisation i.e the canonical tag. However a US version (of this UK site) is about to be developed on a subfolder (domain.com/uk/ & domain.com/US/ etc so also looking into adopting the hreflang attribute on these. Upon reading up about the hreflang attribute i see that it performs a degree of canonicalisation too. Does that mean that developing the international versions with hreflang means there's no need to apply canonicalistion tags to deal with the dupe content, since will deal with the original dupe content problems as well as the new country related dupe content, via the hreflang ? I also understand that hreflang and canonicalisation can conflict/clash on different language versions of international subfolders etc as per: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igbrm1z_7Hk In this instance we are only looking at US/UK versions but very likely will want to expand into non english countries too in the future like France for example. So given both the above points if you are using hreflang is it advisable (or even best) to totally avoid the canonical tag ? I would be surprised if the answers yes, since whilst makes logical sense given the above (if the above statements are correct), that seems strange given how important and standard best practice canonical usage seems to be these days. What best ? Use the Hreflang alone, or the Canonical tag alone or both ? What does everyone else do in similar situation ? All Best Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Canonicalising To A 301?
Hi there, We currently make use of a 301 rule to always return the trailing slash version of any URL on the site. Recently, it seems that the canonical tag was implemented incorrectly. Here's an example: http://www.zando.co.za/women/shoes is redirected to http://www.zando.co.za/women/shoes/ (trailing slash) However, our canonical tags, across the site, are going to the non-slash version, as follows: I'm right in saying this really damaging? Also, if I instruct the Dev team to implement a site-wide fix by adding the trailing slash in all cases, can I expect any weird side affects on my current rankings/indexation? If so, I can only imagine it being a short-term thing as Google re-aligns it's index of our site? I treat canonical tags with plenty of caution. 😉 Any insights appreciated. Cheers, P.
Technical SEO | | RocketZando0 -
Multiple (different) domains and canonicalisation
Hello, We've had experience with canonical tags for various domains before, such as tidying up product categories etc... However, can anyone point me to any guidelines about different domains using canonicalisation. For example: If I had the following sites, all with identical content - exampledomain.com completelydifferentdomain.net anothertotallydifferentdomain.com With canonical tags pointing to the first one (exampledomain.com), could this be harmful? Is it better to 301 redirect the other sites? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Sarbs0 -
Deos canonicalisation work across directories?
Hi everyone, I'm new to the group and can't find this question answered anywhere else. I have a dynamic site that we aim to rewrite the URLs removing parameters and making it easier for the engines to index us and users to recall URLs. The issue that worries me relates to canonical tags. If I put a canonical tag on a directory.. http://www.abc.com/spain (index page) and then point all variations of that page to the index page will it stop/pass juice for those pages at the next directory level to the index page rather than properly index and rank those pages appropriately. ie. http://www.abc.com/spain/Malaga.html will it pass any link juice I have for the second level to the first level? It concerns me that it will as I had a conversation with someone who lost all visibility on her site and it turned out to be the canonical tag on the home page that was causing it. Thanks in anticipation
Technical SEO | | VIPvillasdotcom0 -
Canonicalisation - Best Approach?
Hi I have been reading into canonicalisation and I am looking for professional advice and guidance on the best approach as there are many conflicting views on how to implement a solution. I have added to the homepage http://www.cheapfindergames.com/" /> so that http://cheapfindergames.com and index.php redirects to the www version. Or would it be better using .htaccess if this is the case what code would be needed to achieve the above? Many Thanks
Technical SEO | | ocelot0 -
Crawl Errors for duplicate titles/content when canonicalised or noindexed
Hi there, I run an ecommerce store and we've recently started changing the way we handle pagination links and canonical links. We run Magento, so each category eg /shoes has a number of parameters and pages depending on the number of products in the category. For example /shoes?mode=grid will display products in grid view, /shoes?mode=grid&p=2 is page 2 in grid mode. Previously, all URL variations per category were canonicalised to /shoes. Now, we've been advised to paginate the base URLs with page number only. So /shoes has a pagination next link to /shoes?p=2, page 2 has a prev link to /shoes and a next link to /shoes?p=3. When any other parameter is introduced (such as mode=grid) we canonicalise that back to the main category URL of /shoes and put a noindex meta tag on the page. However, SEOMoz is picking up duplicate title warnings for urls like /shoes?p=2 and /shoes?mode=grid&p=2 despite the latter being canonicalised and having a noindex tag. Presumably search engines will look at the canonical and the noindex tag so this shouldn't be an issue. Is that correct, or should I be concerned by these errors? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Fergus_Macdonald0 -
Canonicalisation - different languages and channels
Hi If the same content is placed on different URL's for the purposes of providing information on different channels (i.e mobiles), or has been translated into a different language (but is still the same content), do the serach engines still count this as duplicate content and will a canonical URL have to be tagged in these instances? Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Technical SEO | | jimmyseo1