Is your live site supposed to have rel canonical tags?
-
I recently started working for a company and got them to use Moz and I have found that our secure site and our live sites are creating "duplicate content" according to the Crawl Diagnostics feature. On our secure site we have rel canonical tags pointing to our live site. I'm not super familiar with rel canonical tags, but our developer says we're doing the right thing. Would love any insight you guys may have if this is actually duplicate content or not. Thanks so much!
-
Agree with Dave's comments. 1) Get the syntax updated on your canonical links at a minimum. 2) Yes your canonical solution will "work", but it is not best practice. This "solution" is really a last resort. I would try and push to move away from using canonicals this way. You optimally want 1 URL.
Just to add some color, a great / classic video on this was made by Matt Cutts. He gives all kinds of examples where you could have duplicate URLs, i.e. www vs non www subdomain, sorting parameters added onto the URL, different file extensions, capitalization changes, etc. He then gives 3 options to fix them.
-
Best practice: Fix your site where you only have one URL per content item and link to it consistently (Best solution)
-
Use 301 redirects to consolidate to one URL (Next best solution)
-
Use a canonical link, if you cannot do 1 or 2. (Last resort)
Note that Matt says that they treat a canonical as a strong suggestion (it is treated similar to a 301), but they do not always have to follow it. He repeatedly says, use the first two options, and would NOT recommend a canonical as your best or first option.
My favorite quote is at 2:24 in the video, "Developers keep SEOs in business"
What your developer may notice is that Matt does say that using a canonical link for consolidating http and https will work. No one here would say that it would not, it is just not optimal. Sure, you can use a pair of scissors to cut your lawn, "it will work". It doesn't mean it's the best idea. I would think any developer worth his/her salt would want to have "clean code" and having duplicate URLs is not "clean" by SEO standards
Ok, so now you need to go back to the developer or your manager with an argument that is stronger than just, "Well, some random dude on the Moz forum said that Matt Cutt's from Google said it was preferred not to use a canonical link even though it would work". I would never want to leave you in such a position. Here is what will/can happen over time if you stay with your current setup.
-
Report consolidation issues. When you look at GA for traffic or OSE for links, any spidering tool for technical issues, social sharing counts, you now have split data for any given page potentially. Sure there are ways around this, but now you have to spend all your time "fixing" reports that should not be broken to start with. Trust me, this will come back to bite you on the bum and will cripple your efforts to show the efficacy of your SEO work. Now who really wants that?
-
Link juice consolidation issues. With any redirect - you lose a bit of link juice. If you have links to both sets of URLs, any single page is not getting as much credit as it should.
-
Down the line 301 redirect bloat. If you ever change anything and need to setup a 301 redirect, now you have to setup 2 of them and having too many 301s can negatively impact server performance.
One last thing. If you can get the URLs consolidated into one using 301s etc. Go with the https That is the way that we are headed with the web and so you might as well get going in that direction.
Good luck!
-
-
I really appreciate the response and the added information. I guess we will see if anyone else responds!
-
I'd be interested in hearing what someone else has to say about the way the canonicals are coded. You're doing yours similar to the way I do DNS Prefetching with the double slash to start the URL:
It works fine with prefetching as all the browser needs to do is find the IP of the domain but I'm not sure here how it'll handle sub-directories including www and I hate variables even when they're "it should work". The more common way to canonicalize your secured page would be:
/>
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any direct experience with this but at the core of technical SEO issues I always lean to "most common usage" and "how Google shows it in their examples" just to make sure there is minimal chance of hiccups or issues.
That aside though, the developer is right though I'd always still prefer to just see the pages at a single URL. Since that can't be done however ... canonicals are the way to go.
-
That is correct! Here is an example of two URL's of what i'm talking about:
http://www.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinship
https://agrouptt4.secure2.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinshipDoes this help clarify my question? I hope so!
-
I'm not sure I entirely understand the scenario so let me note how I'm hearing it to make sure my understanding is correct to put the answer into context. Please do let me know if my understanding of the scenario is wrong as that may well change my thoughts on it.
You note that your secure site and live site are creating duplicate content. Of course a secure site can be live but I'm taking this to mean you have an area behind a login. That it's creating duplicate content is making me think that a lot of the core information is the same and I'm guessing many of the same pages.
If this is all correct and you can't put the duplicated pages onto one URL only then the canonicals are the way to go and your developer is correct.
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
-
Missing Description Tag
I pulled the latest moz report and my category pages are being flagged as missing description tag, but not only is the description visible on each page, it is also in the code for all to see. Here is the code, what am I missing? | |
Moz Pro | | moon-boots
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | dir="ltr" class="ltr" lang="en"> | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | <title>Astronaut Costumes</title> |
| | <base href="<a href=" http:="" www.interstellarstore.com="" "="">http://www.interstellarstore.com/" /> |
| | |
| | |
| | http://www.interstellarstore.com/image/catalog/Earth.png" rel="icon" /> |
| | catalog/view/theme/pav_WindOnline_Store/stylesheet/bootstrap.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | catalog/view/theme/pav_WindOnline_Store/stylesheet/stylesheet.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | catalog/view/theme/pav_WindOnline_Store/stylesheet/customize/1455569423.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | catalog/view/javascript/font-awesome/css/font-awesome.min.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | catalog/view/theme/pav_WindOnline_Store/stylesheet/animate.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | catalog/view/javascript/jquery/magnific/magnific-popup.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | catalog/view/javascript/jquery/owl-carousel/owl.carousel.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | catalog/view/theme/pav_WindOnline_Store/stylesheet/fonts.css" rel="stylesheet" /> |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |0 -
What is the best way to add a noindex./nofollow meta tags to tags in a blog?
Could anyone tell me the best way to add noindex./nofollow meta tags as I have around 12 duplicate tags in a blog. I have the Yoast SEO plugin - unpaid version.
Moz Pro | | SEM_at_Lees0 -
Why my site so poorly ranks on Google
Hi 🙂 I hope you can help me for my site http://www.majordroid.com/ I really do not understand why my site so poorly ranks on Google. What can I do about that? Are there any errors or something? What can be done about that? Also when I go to the Moz Tools - Open Site Explorer to check how many backlinks I have... It says: 12 Total Links but according to the Google Webmaster tools I have in total 334 links and 138 links to the homepage. see attachment Why Open Site Explorer does not see all the links to my site, which is a possible reason? And last question, what I need to do to remove pages from Google search like this: <cite class="_Rm">/page/2</cite>. <cite class="_Rm">/page/3 and so on...</cite> Thank you 🙂 aK0x345.jpg
Moz Pro | | ivek19870 -
Duplicate titles reported with canonical
Hi Mozzers, In the reports it is saying that I have some duplicate content and titles even though there is a canonical tag on them, is anyone else getting this?
Moz Pro | | KarlBantleman0 -
Google and Open Site Explorer not showing as many links
I've noticed this past week that when you search for the links pointing to a given site, by using the "link:" operator, that Google not showing as many links as they use to. I noticed this also with Open Site Explorer, it is not showing the detail link information as much as it did before. Is Google trying to mask what we can view now on competitors backlinks? If so, how can we see the backlink building that our competitors are doing?
Moz Pro | | tdawson090 -
Open Site Explorer results vs. Google Webmaster Tools results
I've been comparing the links to my domain that OSE and GWT show and GWT shows many more links than OSE. Can anyone explain the difference? Does Google report no follow links that OSE does not?
Moz Pro | | cartersnipes0 -
Open Site Explorer Question- Link Value?
One of my backlinks is from a site that has a page authority of 74. However, the domain is a domain I purchased and 302'd to my current main domain. What I'm wondering (without getting into why a 301 is better than a 302) is this: does OSE have any tool that shows if there is actually value in a link? My assumption is that despite this domain having a PA of 74, the 302 is not passing over any value. To be clear, I understand that a 302 doesn't pass over any SEO value, but my question is whether or not OSE shows the value of a link? Thanks!
Moz Pro | | RodrigoStockebrand0 -
Title tag on sitemap.xml
The SEO moz is showing an error on one of the sites within my SE Moz account campaign under Crawl Diagnostics: Title tag missing or empty. No problem here but the file associated with this issue is sitemap.xml and that just dose't look right as as far as I know xml files are title tag free. I've searched around and i've been able only to confirm my initial thought that sitemap.xml dose't use a title tag .. like any other xml. is this an issue ? (the error that is) or i should let it slide. can it be fixed ? if yes, how ? Thanks !
Moz Pro | | eyepaq1