Mobile Canonical Tag Issue
-
Hey so,
For our site
we have the desktop version: www.site.com/product-name/product-code/The mobile version www.site.com/mobile/product-name/product-code
So...on the desktop version we'd have the following..
| |
Now my question is, what do we do as far as canonicals on the actual mobile URL?
Would it be this?
| |
| |OR are we NOT supposed to have mobile canonical tags whatsoever since we've already added "rel alternate" ?
Would like some clarificaiton.
| | |
-
Not the parameter, specifically speaking, You need to have the canonical on the mobile URL exactly match the primary URL of the non-mobile page. So removing the /mobile/ directory from the URL.
(Technically, a parameter is something added at the end of a URL with a "?" so /product/product-code?sort=desc for example, which you didn't show on your examples. Canonical URLS should never include such parameters. In fact one of the main reasons for using canonicals is to fix issues with extra unwanted parameters being indexed as separate page. Didn't want to risk confusion here.)
Paul
-
Hi Paul! If ThompsonPaul answered your question, would you mind marking his reply as a "Good Answer?" It helps us keep track of things, and it'll give him some bonus MozPoints.
-
Perfect, so then I need to remove the parameter that's included in the mobile canonical tag.
Thanks!
-
You need to include the canonical tag you described on the mobile URLs, Paul.
That's what "closes the loop" for the search engines to understand how those pages are related to each other, regardless of which one they land on first.
(another) Paul
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
-
Best Practice Approaches to Canonicals vs. Indexing in Google Sitemap vs. No Follow Tags
Hi There, I am working on the following website: https://wave.com.au/ I have become aware that there are different pages that are competing for the same keywords. For example, I just started to update a core, category page - Anaesthetics (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/) to focus mainly around the keywords ‘Anaesthetist Jobs’. But I have recognized that there are ongoing landing pages that contain pretty similar content: https://wave.com.au/anaesthetists/ https://wave.com.au/asa/ We want to direct organic traffic to our core pages e.g. (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/). This then leads me to have to deal with the duplicate pages with either a canonical link (content manageable) or maybe alternatively adding a no-follow tag or updating the robots.txt. Our resident developer also suggested that it might be good to use Google Index in the sitemap to tell Google that these are of less value? What is the best approach? Should I add a canonical link to the landing pages pointing it to the category page? Or alternatively, should I use the Google Index? Or even another approach? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Wavelength_International0 -
Copied Content - Define Canonical
Hello, The Story I am working on a news organization. Our website is the https://www.neakriti.gr My question regards copied content with source references. Sometimes a small portion of our content is based on some third article that is posted on some site (that is about 1% of our content). We always put "source" reference if that is the case. This is inevitable as "news" is something that sometimes has sources on other news sites, especially if there is something you cannot verify or don't have immediate sources, and therefore you need to state that "according to this source, something has happened". Here is one article of ours that has a source from another site: https://www.neakriti.gr/article/ellada-nea/1503363/nekros-vrethike-o-agnooumenos-arhimandritis-stin-lakonia/ if you open the above article you will see we have a link to the equivalent article of the original source site http://lakonikos.gr/epikairothta/item/133664-nekros-entopistike-o-arximandritis-p-andreas-bolovinos-synexis-enimerosi Now here is my question. I have read in other MOZ forum articles that a "canonical" approach solves this issue... How can we be legit when it comes to duplicate content in the eyes of search engines? Should we use some kind of canonical link to the source site? Should the "canonical" be inside the link in some way? Should it be on our section? Our site has AMP equivalent pages (if you add the /amp keyword at the end of the article URL). Our AMP pages have canonical to our original article. So if we have a "canonical" approach how would the AMP be effected as well? Also by applying a possible canonical solution to the source URL, does that "canonical" effect our article as not being shown in search results, thus passing all indexing to the canonical site? (I know that canonical indicates what URL is to be indexed). Additionally, does such a canonical indication make us legit in such a case in the eyes of search engines? (i.e. it eliminates any possible article duplication for original content in the eyes of search engines?). Or simply put, having a simple link to the original article (as we have it now) is enough for the search engines to understand that we have reference to original article URL? How would we approach this problem in our site based on its current structure?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ioannisanif0 -
Weird Indexation Issue
On this webpage, we have an interactive graphic that allows users to click a navigational element and learn more about an anatomical part of the knee or a knee malady. For example, a user could click "Articular Cartilage" and they will land on this page: http://www.neocartimplant.com/knee-anatomy-maladies/anatomy/articular-cartilage The weird thing is whether you perform a Google Search for the above URL or for a string of text on that URL (i.e. "Articular cartilage is hyaline cartilage (as opposed to menisci, which consists of fibrocartilage) on the articular surfaces, or the ends, of bones. This thin, smooth tissue lines both joint surfaces where the bones come together to form the knee. ") the following page ranks: http://www.neocartimplant.com/anatmal/knee-anatomy-maladies/anatomy/articular-cartilage.php I have two questions: 1 - Any idea on how the Googlebot is getting to that page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davidangotti
2 - How should I get the Googlebot to index the correct page (http://www.neocartimplant.com/knee-anatomy-maladies/anatomy/articular-cartilage)? Thanks in advance for your help!0 -
Rel=prev/next and canonical tags on paginated pages?
Hi there, I'm using rel="prev" and rel="next" on paginated category pages. On 1st page I'm also setting a canonical tag, since that page happens to get hits to an URL with parameters. The site also uses mobile version of pages on a subdomain. Here's what markup the 1st desktop page has: Here's what markup the 2nd desktop page has: Here's what markup the 1st MOBILE page has: Here's what markup the 2nd MOBILE page has: Questions: 1. On desktop pages starting from page 2 to page X, if these pages get traffic to their versions with parameters, will I'll have duplicate issues or the canonical tag on 1st page makes me safe? 2. Should I use canonical tags on mobile pages starting from page 2 to page X? Are there any better solutions of avoiding duplicate content issues?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | poiseo1 -
Need a mobile XML Sitemap?
We're going to be running our mobile site on the same domain and generating content for users on mobile devices with style sheets (will not have m.domain). The content on our URLs will be the exact same. My question is if we need to create a mobile XML Sitemap to submit to the search engines. Do we need to create the Sitemap, that will contain the exact same URLs as our non-mobile Sitemap, and just include <mobile><mobile>tags around the URLs? Or do we need to create a mobile Sitemap at all to alert the search engines that we have mobile content?</mobile></mobile> Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bonnierSEO0 -
Page Authority Issue
My home page http://www.musicliveuk.com has a domain authority of 42 and page authority of 52. However I have set up other pages on the site to optimise for one keyword per page as I thought this was best practice. For example http://www.musicliveuk.com/home/wedding-bands targets 'wedding band' but this has a page authority of 24 way below my competitors. Having used the keyword difficulty tool on here it appears that is why I am struggling to rank highly (number 9). This is the same problem for several of my main keywords. I am building links to this and other pages in order to increase their authority and eventually rank highly but am I not better off optimising my home page that already has a good page authority and would probably out rank my competitors? Or am I missing something?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SamCUK0 -
Will the Canonical tag fix this issue?
I recently joined promoz and I've been busy working through the issues raised brought to light during the crawls of our Magento site, www.unitedbmwonline.com. One of many issues were the 10,000+ Duplicate Page Titles which I believe are the result of not using Canonical tags when setting up the store. This is now corrected and hopefully I'll see a significant drop in this value after this next crawl. Am I correct in this assumption? Cheers, Steve
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SteveMaguire0 -
301 Redirect or Canonical Tag or Leave Them Alone? Different Pages - Similar Content
We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are: **Version 1 -- Preferred Version: ** http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx Title = California Business for Sale Ads - California Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker Version 2: http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-California.aspx Title = California Business for Sale | 3124 California Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net Version 3: http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml Title = California Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - California Business for Sale While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical. We were wondering if it would make good sense to either (A) 301 redirect Versions 2 and 3 to the preferred Version 1 page or (B) put Canonical Tags on Versions 2 and 3 labeling Version 1 as the preferred version. We have this issue for all 50 U.S. States -- I've mentioned California here but the same applies for Alabama through Wyoming - same issue. Given that there are 3 different flavors and all are showing up in the Search Results -- some on the same 1st page of results -- which probably is a good thing for now -- should we do a 301 redirect or a Canonical Tag on Versions 2 and 3? Seems like with Google cracking down on duplicate content, it might be wise to be proactive. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Matt M
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWM37720