Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
-
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.)
rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"?
Instead of:
-
Relative URLs can be used, but it's still superior to use absolute URLs to avoid any mistakes down the line. i.e. you miss a 301 redirect on a subdirectory and both HTTP and HTTPs versions resolve.
Relative URLs can be used in a pinch, but aren't recommended.
-
You can use a relative canonical but the example you give is wrong, it should be href="/page1.html" The example you give looks like mis take 2 on this page http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
rgds
Dirk
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 for Exact Same Copy?
I've read about using rel canonical tags for product pages like "blue shorts" vs "red shorts" but if I have two pages with the exact same copy - different URL's - but same copy, can I use a rel canonical tag and be okay for duplicate content purposes? (There is is reason the page is exactly the same, at least for the time being, so I'm just focusing on how not to be get penalized as opposed to rewriting it at the moment). Thanks, Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
how to set rel canonical on wordpress.com sites
I know how to do this with a wordpress.org site but I have a client that does not want to switch and without a plugin I am lost. any help would be greatly appreciated. Jeremy Wood
Technical SEO | | SOtBOrlando0 -
Does bing accept meta name="fragment" for AJAX crawling?
I have a case in which the whole site is AJAX, the method to appease to crawlers used is <meta< span="">name="fragment" content="!"> Which is the new HTML5 PushState that Bing said it supports (At least I think it is that) This approach works for Google, but Bing isn't showing anything. Does anyone know if Bing supports this and we have to alter something or if not is there a known work around? The only other logic we have is to recognize the bing user agent and redirect to the rendered page, but we were worried that could cause some kind of cloaking penalty</meta<>
Technical SEO | | MarloSchneider0 -
Rel=canonical overkill on duplicate content?
Our site has many different health centers - many of which contain duplicate content since there is topic crossover between health centers. I am using rel canonical to deal with this. My question is this: Is there a tipping point for duplicate content where Google might begin to penalize a site even if it has the rel canonical tags in place on cloned content? As an extreme example, a site could have 10 pieces of original content, but could then clone and organize this content in 5 different directories across the site each with a new url. This would ultimately result in the site having more "cloned" content than original content. Is this at all problematic even if the rel canonical is in place on all cloned content? Thanks in advance for any replies. Eric
Technical SEO | | Eric_Lifescript0 -
Moving content from CMS pages to a blog - 301 or rel canonical?
Our site has some useful information buried in out-of-the-way CMS pages, and I feel like this content is more suited to our blog. What's my best method here? 1. Move the content to a blog post, delete the original page, and 301. 2. Move the content to a blog post, leave the original page up, and rel canonical. 3. Rewrite the content so it's not a duplicate, keep original page up, and post rewritten content on the blog. 4. Something else. Some of this content has inbound links and some does not. Quite a bit of it gets long-tail traffic already. It just looks kludgy because it's on pages that really aren't designed for articles. It would look much nicer and be much more readable/shareable/linkable on the blog.
Technical SEO | | CMC-SD0 -
Would this be considered "thin content?"
I share a lot of images via twitter and over the last year I've used several different tools to do this; mainly twitpic, and now instagram. Last year I wanted to try to find a way to host those images on my site so I could get the viewers of the picture back to my site instead a 3rd party (twitpic, etc.) I found a few plugins that worked "sort of" well, and so I used that for a while. (I have since stopped doing that in favor of using instagram.) But my question is do all of these image posts hurt my site you think? I had all of these images under a category called "twitter" but have since moved them to an uncategorized category until I figure out what I want to do with them. I wanted to see if anyone could chime in and give me some advice. Since the posts are just images with no content (other than the image) and the title isn't really "optimized" for anything do these posts do me more harm than good. Do I delete them all? Leave them as is? Or do something else? Also in hindsight I'm assuming this was a bad idea since the bounce rate for people clicking on a link just to see an image was probably very high, and may have caused the opposite result of what I was looking for. If I knew than what I know now I would have tracked the bounce rate of those links, how many people who viewed one of those images actually went to another page on the site, etc. But hindsight's 20/20. 🙂
Technical SEO | | NoahsDad0 -
Rel="canonical" and rewrite
Hi, I'm going to describe a scenario on one of my sites, I was wondering if someone could tell me what is the correct use of rel="canonical" here. Suppose I have a rewrite rule that has a rule like this: RewriteRule ^Online-Games /main/index.php So, in the index file, do I set the rel="canonical" to Online-Games or /main/index.php? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | webtarget0 -
On-Page Report Card & Rel Canonical
Hello, I ran one of our pages through the On-Page Report Card. Among the results we are getting a lower grade due to the following "critical factor" : Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Explanation 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. This is for an e-commerce site, and the canonical links are inserted automatically by the cart software. The cart is also creating the canonical url as a relative link, not an absolute URL. In this particular case it's a self-referential link. I've read a ton on this and it seems that this should be okay (I also read that Bing might have an issue with this). Is this really an issue? If so, what is the best practice to pass this critical factor? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | rwilson-seo0