Is this correct?
-
I noticed Moz using the following for its homepage
Is this best practice though? The reason I ask is that, I use and I've been reading this page by Google
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
5 common mistakes with rel=canonical
Mistake 2: Absolute URLs mistakenly written as relative URLs
The tag, like many HTML tags, accepts both relative and absolute URLs. Relative URLs include a path “relative” to the current page. For example, “images/cupcake.png” means “from the current directory go to the “images” subdirectory, then to cupcake.png.” Absolute URLs specify the full path—including the scheme like http://.
Specifying (a relative URL since there’s no “http://”) implies that the desired canonical URL is http://example.com/example.com/cupcake.html even though that is almost certainly not what was intended. In these cases, our algorithms may ignore the specified rel=canonical. Ultimately this means that whatever you had hoped to accomplish with this rel=canonical will not come to fruition.
-
Thanks
-
Ow im sorry, totally mis understood - sorry if i was explaining something you understood.
Moz use
you said they use
/> i presume now you mean the / at the end of the tag.
This is an old school closing tag. HTML elements were traditionally opened and closed in HTML versions before HTML5. Normally this is done obviously with tags such the opener "
" and closer "
". However some elements dont have a seperate closing tag such as "" tags. In older html versions these were closed using the format
Missing these tags didn't used to do much as most browsers rendered the page correctly anyways, but best practice was to include the / to close elements. However with the dawn of HTML5 things changed.
HTML5 doesn't require the closing tag. Elements that used to require one now simply dont. Browsers still understand both versions absolutely fine and its kinda ok to use either. But the most modern and correct practice is to use it without.
Edit:
Racking my brain, i believe the / was added as best practice to assure compatibility with XHTML which was pegged to be the next version of HTML. When XHTML was scrapped in favour of HTML5 it changed. Somebody may correct me on this one though
-
Thanks, I realise the usage should be a correct relative URL or a correctly formed absolute URL. In Moz's case, they used a correctly formed absolute URL.
My question is more around...why not use "/"?
Cyto
-
Looks fine to me, i think you misunderstand Mistake 2
They are using an absolute URL
If they did the "mistake 2" their canonical tag would look like
You canonical tags should always be absolute for good practice
is correct
or any variant of this would be wrong
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
-
Google cache is for a 3rd parties site for HTTP version and correct for HTTPS
If I search Google for my cache I get the following: cache:http://www.saucydates.com -> Returns the cache of netball.org (HTTPS page with Plesk default page) cache:https://www.saucydates.com -> Displays the correct page Prior to this my http cache was the Central Bank of Afghanistan. For most searches at present my index page is not returned and when it is, it’s the Net Ball Plesk page. This is, of course hurting my search traffic considerably. ** I have tried many things, here is the current list:** If I fetch as Google in webmaster tools the HTTPS fetch and render is correct. If I fetch the HTTP version I get a redirect (which is correct as I have a 301 HTTP to HTTPS redirect). If I turn off HTTPS on my server and remove the redirect the fetch and render for HTTP version is correct. The 301 redirect is controlled with the 301 Safe redirect option in Plesk 12.x The SSL cert is valid and with COMODO I have ensured the IP address (which is shared with a few other domains that form my sites network / functions) has a default site I have placed a site on my PTR record and ensured the HTTPS version goes back to HTTP as it doesn’t need SSL I have checked my site in Waybackwhen for 1 year and there are no hacked redirects I have checked the Netball site in Waybackwhen for 1 year, mid last year there is an odd firewall alert page. If you check the cache for the https version of the netball site you get another sites default plesk page. This happened at the same time I implemented SSL Points 6 and 7 have been done to stop the server showing a Plesk Default page as I think this could be the issue (duplicate content) ** Ideas:** Is this a 302 redirect hi-jack? Is this a Google bug? Is this an issue with duplicate content as both servers can have a default Plesk page (like millions of others!) A network of 3 sites mixed up that have plesk could be a clue? Over to the experts at MOZ, can you help? Thanks, David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dmcubed0 -
Is this the correct way of using rel canonical, next and prev for paginated content?
Hello Moz fellows, a while ago (3-4 years ago) we setup our e-commerce website category pages to apply what Google suggested to correctly handle pagination. We added rel "canonicals", rel "next" and "prev" as follows: On page 1: On page 2: On page 3: And so on, until the last page is reached: Do you think everything we have been doing is correct? I have doubts on the way we have handled the canonical tag, so, any help to confirm that is very appreciated! Thank you in advance to everyone.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
The correct hreflang for the GB
Hi does anyone know the correct hreflang for the UK Google webmaster error: International Targeting | Language > 'en-GB' - no return tags (sitemaps)Sitemap provided URLs and alternate URLs in 'en-GB' that do not have return tags.Thanks you all
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Taiger0 -
Part of my site does not show the correct Meta title
Hi our website meta title on the directory section is showing the same title, it does not show the page title. We have tried turning off all plugins, reinstalling the theme, creating a new htacces file. installing Yoast, and testing with All in one seo but still the same thing happens. Tried different themes with the same results But when we test with Twenty Thirteen it is ok Completely lost and would love some help Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Taiger0 -
Localising our business to the correct country
Hi I work for children's furniture business called Tidy Books. We are based in the UK. We have UK site www.tidy-books.co.uk. We also have a US site www.tidy-books.com which is registered in the US. We have fully dedicated and translated French, German and Italian site (www.tidy-books.fr, www.tidy-books.de, www.tidy-books.it) . These all fall under our UK registered address. What I would like, is to have a French, German and Italian business address for these website. We just need an address only. This would mainly be used to for Google business listing and other business listings sites to help rank are sites correctly in their country domains. T Do you know of or recommend any companies that can do this? Is there any implications I need to be aware of, such as tax? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tidybooks0 -
Have I set up my structured data correctly, the testing tool suggests not?
Hi, I've recently marked up some Events for a client in hope that they'll appear as rich snippets in ther SERPS. I have access to their Google Search Console so used the Data Highlighter facility to mark them up, rather than the Raven plugin available for WordPress sites like this. I completed this on 10th July and the snippets are yet to appear - I understand that this can take time and there are no guarantees - but as a novice it would be reassuring if someone can advise that I have done this correctly. We did incidentally resubmit a sitemap after completing this task, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference. I've read that it's the structured data testing tool that I need to use to test my markup, but when I input the urls below, the tool doesn't tell me a lot, which either suggests I've marked it up incorrectly, or don't know how to read it! http://www.ad-esse.com/events/19th-august-2015-reducing-costs-changing-culture-improving-services/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nathangdavidson
http://www.ad-esse.com/events/160915-reducing-costs-changing-culture-improving-services-london/
http://www.ad-esse.com/events/151015-reducing-costs-changing-culture-improving-services-london/ Any guidance welcomed! Many thanks,
Nathan0 -
Anybody else seeing Penguin corrections?
Hi,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft
Over the past few days, I have noticed that a few of my pages that were hit by the Google Penguin update come back from the dead and return to the #1 spot for the main keywords. I still don't see any change for secondary keywords I used to rank for, but hey at least there is something. Has anybody else noticed this? NOTE: I did not make any changes to my pages. I had never done any black-hat (just greyish) so I took the advice of many and just waited.1