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
-
Allowing correct crawlers for GeoIP Redirect
Hi All, I am working on an international site and we have started running into issues with crawlers successfully crawling the site. GeoIPEnable On Redirect one country RewriteEngine on
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | michaelpw
RewriteCond %{ENV:GEOIP_COUNTRY_CODE} ^US$
RewriteCond %{HTTP:X-Host} !.nexcesscdn.net$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.)$ https://us.website.com/ [R,L] The main reason for working on a hard GEOIP redirect would be that we are unable to show certain products in certain regions, the customer should not be given the option which is best practice. Can anyone advise? Thanking in advance.0 -
How do I know if I am correctly solving an uppercase url issue that may be affecting Googlebot?
We have a large e-commerce site (10k+ SKUs). https://www.flagandbanner.com. As I have begun analyzing how to improve it I have discovered that we have thousands of urls that have uppercase characters. For instance: https://www.flagandbanner.com/Products/patriotic-paper-lanterns-string-lights.asp. This is inconsistently applied throughout the site. I directed our website vendor to fix the issue and they placed 301 redirects via a rule to the web.config file. Any url that contains an uppercase character now displays as a lowercase. However, as I use screaming frog to monitor our site, I see all these 301 redirects--thousands of them. The XML sitemap still shows the the uppercase versions. We have had indexing issues as well. So I'm wondering what is the most effective way to make sure that I'm not placing an extra burden on Googlebot when they index our site? Should I have just not cared about the uppercase issue and let it alone?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webrocket0 -
Are my language tags correct?
Hello, I have a Spanish website for Spanish speaking people es.example.com. I also have example.com for all English speaking people across the world. I want that users who go to google.es and search in English get our example.com site and others who search in Spanish on google.es get the Spanish site. Should the tags be like this: Or should we also have this tag aswell to specify? Otherwise we might only show the es.domain even for english queris? :
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | advertisingtech0 -
Correct Schema Markup
Hello, I've been having some markup issues and need some help. I researched what would be the best Business type and used that markup on the website. But when I check it in the testing tool I get this http://screencast.com/t/vtlfn2MNPKf It doesn't recognize the object type. Could this be an error with my website or the markup its self? Please advise Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rank-and-Grow0 -
Robots.txt: how to exclude sub-directories correctly?
Hello here, I am trying to figure out the correct way to tell SEs to crawls this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/ But not this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/sub-directory/ or this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/sub-directory2/sub-directory/... But with the fact I have thousands of sub-directories with almost infinite combinations, I can't put the following definitions in a manageable way: disallow: /directory/sub-directory/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory2/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory/sub-directory/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory2/subdirectory/ etc... I would end up having thousands of definitions to disallow all the possible sub-directory combinations. So, is the following way a correct, better and shorter way to define what I want above: allow: /directory/$ disallow: /directory/* Would the above work? Any thoughts are very welcome! Thank you in advance. Best, Fab.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau1 -
How do I implement SSL correctly without losing rank?
I need to add SSL to our site in some capacity - either entirely, or just on specific pages (form pages, for example.) How do I implement this properly so as not to lose rank?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ocularis0 -
Getting Google to Correct a Misspelled Site Link...Help!
My company website recently got its site links in google search... WooHoo! However, when you type TECHeGO into Google Search one of the links is spelled incorrectly. Instead of 'CONversion Optimization' its 'COversion Optimization'. At first I thought there was a misspelling on that page somewhere but there is not and have come to the conclusion that Google has made a mistake. I know that I can block the page in webmaster tools (No Thanks) but how in the crap can I get them to correct the spelling when no one really knows how to get them to appear in the first place? Riddle Me That Folks! sitelink.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TECHeGO0