Appropriate use of rel canonical
-
Hey Guys,I'm a bit stuck. My on-page grade indicated the following two issues and I need to find how how to fix both issues.If you have a solution, could you please let me know how to address these issues? It's all a bit intimidating at the moment!!Thank you so much..****************************************************************************************************************************************Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.
Recommendation: We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.
No More Than One Canonical URL Tag
The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.
Recommendation: Remove all but a single canonical URL tag
-
Yeah, I'd really tackle this error first, as the other one could be a false alarm. It sounds like you've got multiple canonical tags on a single page, which Google can't interpret very well (and that might just ignore it or use the wrong one). This often indicates that your CMS is double-placing tags and could signal broader problems.
-
Since the error message you get is "no more than one canonical URL tag," I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the affected pages have more than one canonical.
You can check this by looking at the source code of the page (which you can do by going into the menu of whatever browser you are using and choosing "page source" or "view source"- it is different in different browsers- look around or use the browser's help feature) and doing a search for rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>"; this should only appear once. If it appears more than once, remove the ones you don't want.
The canonical should be the URL of the page that you want Google to see as the one to index and return in results. For example, if you are using canonicals because you have tracking codes appended to a URL and that creates the appearance of duplicate content, use the URL without the codes as the canonical one.
Just remember that when you put a canonical URL on a page, you are telling Google to ignore the actual URL of that page and consider it to be the canonical URL instead.
-
I will try and find out all of this information... Just give me a bit of time to figure it out. Thanks for being helpful.. I'm loving moz to death! It's a great community
-
First don't worry we are here for you! Second to me "Rel=" is one of the more misunderstood tools and there are a lot of questions surrounding it's implementation. Here are a few reference points to learn from as well.
- http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
- http://moz.com/community/q/fixing-appropriate-use-of-rel-canonical
- http://www.webceo.com/blog/how-to-use-relcanonical-properly/
- Is there an Advantage of using Rel=”canonical” over 301 redirect? By Matt Cutts
Ok so first how are you currently using the tag? Could you post a screenshot or code example as well as a link to the site? Basically you want to make sure that you are using the Tag as a way to deal with duplicate or similar pages as a way to tell Search Engines what the master version of the page is. In my opinion I would try very hard to avoid dupes and normalize URLs in the first place, meaning the tag is more of a last resort option after you have exhausted other methods. Also there are so many ways a Rel="canonical" can go wrong so seeing how your implementing it would help. So try to let us see how your using it as that would help me give a more targeted solution.
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
-
Canonical vs 301 - Web Development
So I'm having a conversation with the development team at my work and I'm a little tired today so I thought I would ask for other opinions. The currently the site duplicates it's full site by having a 200 show with or without a trailing slash. I have asked for a 301 redirect to with the trailing slash. They countered with having all the rel=canonical be the trailing slash, which I know is acceptable. My issue is that while a rel=canonical is acceptable, since my site has a very high level of competition and a very aggressive link building strategy, I believe that it may be beneficial to have the 301 redirect. BUT, I may be wrong. When we're talking hundreds of thousands of links, I would love to have them directly linked instead of possibly splitting them up between a duplicate page that has a correct canonical. I'm curious to what everyone thinks though....
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mattdinbrooklyn1 -
Is there an advantage to using rel=canonical rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)?
Is there an advantage to using link rel=alternate (as recommended by Google) rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)? The content on the mobile pages is very similar to the content on the desktop site. I see Google recommends canonical and alternate tags, but what are the benefits of using those rather than noindex?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jennifer.new0 -
Is their value in linking to PPC landing pages and using rel="canonical"
I have ppc landing pages that are similar to my seo page. The pages are shorter with less text with a focus on converting visitors further along in the purchase cycle. My questions are: 1. Is there a benefit for having the orphan ppc pages indexed or should I no index them? 2. If indexing does provide benefits, should I create links from my site to the ppc pages or should I just submit them in a sitemap? 3. If indexed, should I use rel="canonical" and point the ppc versions to the appropriate organic page? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrandExpSteve0 -
Rel=Canonical to Longer Page?
We've got a series of articles on the same topic and we consolidated the content and pasted it altogether on a single page. We linked from each individual article to the consolidated page. We put a noindex on the consolidated page. The problem: Inbound links to individual articles in the series will only count toward the authority of those individual pages, and inbound links to the full article will be worthless. I am considering removing the noindex from the consolidated article and putting rel=canonicals on each individual post pointing to the consolidated article. That should consolidate the PageRank. But I am concerned about pointing****a rel=canonical to an article that is not an exact duplicate (although it does contain the full text of the original--it's just that it contains quite a bit of additional text). An alternative would be not to use rel=canonicals, nor to place a noindex on the consolidated article. But then my concern would be duplicate content and unconsolidated PageRank. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheEspresseo0 -
Two pages on same domain - Is this a proper use of the canonical tag?
I have a domain with two pages in question--one is an article with 2,000 words and the other is a FAQ with 300 words. The 300 word FAQ is copied, word-for-word and pasted inside of the 2,000 word article. Would it be a proper use of the canonical tag to point the smaller, 300 word FAQ at the 2,000 word article? Since the 300 word article is identical to a portion of the 2,000 word article, will Google see this as duplicate content? Thanks in advance for any helpful insight.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewv0 -
Should I use BOTH UBL and Localeze?
Would it be worthwhile to list a business with both UBL and Localeze?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DougHoltOnline0 -
Bad use of the Rel="canonical" tag
Google is currently ranking my category page instead of our homepage for our key term and we would rather have our homepage rank for the term. Would it be a bad idea to rel="canonical" our category page to our homepage? Our homepage is optimized to rank for the keyword and has more PR than our category page. However, I don't really know if this will have negative repercussions. Thanks, Jason
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jason_3420 -
Paging. is it better to use noindex, follow
Is it better to use the robots meta noindex, follow tag for paging, (page 2, page 3) of Category Pages which lists items within each category or just let Google index these pages Before Panda I was not using noindex because I figured if page 2 is in Google's index then the items on page 2 are more likely to be in Google's index. Also then each item has an internal link So after I got hit by panda, I'm thinking well page 2 has no unique content only a list of links with a short excerpt from each item which can be found on each items page so it's not unique content, maybe that contributed to Panda penalty. So I place the meta tag noindex, follow on every page 2,3 for each category page. Page 1 of each category page has a short introduction so i hope that it is enough to make it "thick" content (is that a word :-)) My visitors don't want long introductions, it hurts bounce rate and time on site. Now I'm wondering if that is common practice and if items on page 2 are less likely to be indexed since they have no internal links from an indexed page Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | donthe0