Using Canonical Attribute
-
Hi All,
I am hoping you can help me?
We have recently migrated to the Umbraco CMS and now have duplicate versions of the same page showing on different URLs. My understanding is that this is one of the major reasons for the rel=canonical tag.
So am I right in saying that if I add the following to the page that I want to rank then this will work?
I'm just a little worried as I have read some horror stories of people implementing this attribute incorrectly and getting into trouble.
Thank you in advance
-
Just want to add one comment. Where people end up in trouble is when they apply the canonical tag too broadly (to non-duplicates). This tends to happen when you have a CMS and one template drives multiple pages. So, let's say that all of your product pages are created by:
http://example.com/product.php
...and you just add IDs to that to create a product, like:
http://example.com/product.php?id=123
If you add a canonical tag to "product.php" pointing to a single product, you would essentially tell Google to canonicalize every product page on your site to just that one product. This is because that one physical file impacts hundreds of URLs. So, in that case, you would have to make sure the code logic was in place to apply the proper ID.
-
Mr. Painter said it perfectly.
With that said, I think the decision of whether or not to use canonical tags depends partially on what the varying URLs are. If they are like the books/author example above the Canonical tags are for you.
However a lot of people mistakenly think that using canonical tags to solve the non-www to www duplication is a proper solution when in fact you need to 301 in that case.
So if your URL duplication issues stem from http://books.com/author and http://www.books.com/author then you need to put a redirect in place instead.
Just wanted to add that tidbit on just in case. Good luck!
-
Hell,
first off here is some help - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139394?hl=en
the way it works is lets say you've got two bits of content on two different areas of a site but it will only index one (and mark other as a duplicate) Example :
&
Now these may be the same content, what we would then do is put a canonical tag on the duplicate page pointing to the page we wanted to be indexed ( I would recommend using one thats closer to the domain) so on www.books.com/genre/author we would put the tag -
What this does it tells Google this page is a duplicate of this one (the one in the link) Google will then ignore that page and only index the page in the canonical **In Short** Canonical is used for duplicate content if you only need one page to been indexed and want to avoid duplicate content issues. if you have duplicate content its perfect for you. Hope that helps clear it up
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
-
Rel=Canonical Vs. 301 for blog articles
Over the last few years, my company has acquired numerous different companies -- some of which were acquired before that. Some of the products acquired were living on their previous company's parent site vs. having their own site dedicated to the product. The decision has been made that each product will have their own site moving forward. Since the product pages, blog articles and resource center landing pages (ex. whitepapers LPs) were living on the parent site, I'm struggling with the decision to 301 vs. rel=canonical those pages (with the new site being self canonicaled). I'm leaning toward take-down and 301 since rel=canonicals are simply suggestions to Google and a new domain can get all the help it can to start ranking. Are there any cons to doing so?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mfcb0 -
Changing 301s or using 302s after a relaunch?
We are doing a relaunch and changing nearly every URL. Since the list of redirects is > 5.000 we might have some mistakes we want to change later (i.e. having a 301 to a directory but finding a single page later that fits its purpose better). Can I change the 301 later and will seachengines get that? Can I use 302s for a week or two until I'm sure about my redirects and only than do propper 301s?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nabujona0 -
Using Pagination for eComm Reviews Pages
Hi All, An eComm site has product pages where only 10 customer reviews are found in the source code on the product page, no matter how many reviews the product actually has. ALL reviews (including the 10 displayed on the product page) are located on a subdomain, split into many pages dependong on how many reviews a certain product has (some have well over 100 unique reviews). Reviews page: http://reviews.americanmuscle.com/0065-en_us/charcoalamr-18x8-0512-pirelli-stan/american-muscle-wheels-amr-charcoal-wheel-pirelli-tire-kit-18x8-05-14-all-reviews/reviews.htm Corresponding product page: http://www.americanmuscle.com/charcoalamr-18x8-0512-pirelli-stan.html I'm fearing a Panda related problem here, especially since thousands of products have only 1 or two reviews, duplicated on the reviews.americanmuscle.com page and the corresponding product page. I also do not want to lose the unique content on the second and third reviews pages simply by noindexing/canonicaling them to the product page. My question is whether or not I can paginate the reviews.am pages in a way that the product page is "page 1" and the first reviews page is "page 2," second reviews.am page is "page 3" and so forth. Are there issues associated with domain-to-subdomain pagination? Can I utilize the pagination tab in this manner in the first place? There are currently more than 57,000 of these review.americanmuscle.com pages in the index that I would like to clean up so any/all suggestions are appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewv0 -
Cross domain canonical and hreflang
Hi Guys, So we are close to launching our new site and just need to be sure that our canonical, duplicate issues are sorted before launch. So here is our current situation. The current site is on trespass.co.uk. Then new site will be on trespass.com. The new launch is global and we will have the 3 stores within magento all in english. Trespass.com for the UK
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Trespass
Trespass.com/US for US
Trespass.com/ROW for all other countries On trespass.com we have the following: On trespass.com/US we have the following: On trespass.com/ROW we have the following: This is how the magento developers.design company have set it up but am I right in saying the canonical tag for each store (/ROW and /US) should point to Trespass.com as the only difference is in the pricing £ $ and euros? Thanks for your help0 -
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
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StoryScout1 -
Can you Canonical to a URL in a different folder under the same domain?
I want to know if it's possible to add a canonical tag to a URL that points to a URL under a different folder. Content is just about the same. Here's an example (fake urls and product, but structure and parameters are similar to my client's website): domain.com/toy-ducks-results.aspx?color=Purple&model=Elvis domain.com/toy-ducks-details.aspx?color=Purple&model=Elvis&style=Sparkly Let's say that my purple Elvis ducks are really popular. Is there any harm in putting a rel=canonical on the Sparkly Elvis ducks page to the purple Elvis ducks page? Even though they are two different folders? /toy-ducks-results and /toy-ducks-details So, in effect, the preferred folder is /toy-ducks-results Thanks in advance for any help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EEE30 -
Redirect 301 or Canonical.
Hello all, I have a page with a long post title and url path name (more than 70 caracters and 115). This page has many visits but I am changing the SEO website structure according to SEOMOz and forums guidelines so: I WILL CREATE A DUPLICATE PAGE WITH THE SAME INFO. This issue has been marked as an issue in the SEO tools, for long names>70 and url path names>115 My question is which option should I use and you would recommend me? 1. OPTION 1: Ideally I would like to keep the old post, so I should use the canonical tag, but my main concern is if the search engines in terms of SEO, even the canonical has been done, will penalise my SEO as there is still a post with bad SEO optimising, or if this is not the case because I already used the canonical. 2. OPTION 2: Eliminate the post and redirection 301 to the new page to keep the juice. I would prefer option 1, as I keep both post and page, but only if searchengines do not penalise my SEO as they detect a long post name and url path name. Thank you verty much, Antonio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aalcocer20030 -
Hash as a Replacement for Absolute URL in Canonical Tags?
Any idea why companies like Skechers would be doing this: http://screencast.com/t/ooEkATGN7EX ? I suppose it makes sense, but I've never seen it done before. If this works, why on earth would we be using absolute URLs still?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevewiideman0