Href Lang tags in audit
-
Hi
I am getting a couple of issues flag with my href lang tags, but when I manually check the pages I can't see the issues.
Issue 1. No self referencing href lang tag example URL - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/300kg-capacity-manutan-mobile-lift-table-lift-height-860mm-125h204
(these are SKU pages with duplicate content, so we have canonicals pointing to the main product page)
Issue 2. Conflicting hreflang and rel=canonical - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/500kg-capacity-manutan-mobile-lift-table-lift-height-945mm-127h204
I have checked the source code of the pages with errors against the pages which don't have errors and they look the same - so I am unsure what's wrong?
-
Great thank you. I'm just unsure as to why they're flagging as errors anyway
Thank you!
-
There isn't an error in the markup for the two pages that you shared. Hreflang markup on duplicate pages is useless so you will not lose anything by getting rid of hreflang on these pages. You can try deleting hreflang and see what happens. You only need hreflang on canonical versions of the page. (in your case it would be pages like http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/mobile-lift-tables and http://www.keyonline.ie/en/kie/mobile-lift-tables and not http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/300kg-capacity-manutan-mobile-lift-table-lift-height-860mm-125h204)
Or you can leave it as is and ignore the errors because duplicate pages should have no effect either way.
-
Great thank you, Ill check the bing tracking too!
-
This response from John Doherty might help you out... https://moz.com/community/q/correct-hreflang-canonical-implementation-for-multilingual-site
One other thing of note was your bing webmaster tools configuration looked broken.
name="msvalidate.01" content="???MI386_BING_ID???"/>
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 Ignoring Canonical Tag for Hundreds of Sites
Bazaar Voice provides a pretty easy-to-use product review solution for websites (especially sites on Magento): https://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/bazaarvoice-conversations-1.html If your product has over a certain number of reviews/questions, the plugin cuts off the number of reviews/questions that appear on the page. To see the reviews/questions that are cut off, you have to click the plugin's next or back function. The next/back buttons' URLs have a parameter of "bvstate....." I have noticed Google is indexing this "bvstate..." URL for hundreds of sites, even with the proper rel canonical tag in place. Here is an example with Microsoft: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zcxT7MRHHREJ:www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Surface-Book/productID.325716000%3Fbvstate%3Dpg:8/ct:r+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us My website is seeing hundreds of these "bvstate" urls being indexed even though we have a proper rel canonical tag in place. It seems that Google is ignoring the canonical tag. In Webmaster Console, the main source of my duplicate titles/metas in the HTML improvements section is the "bvstate" URLs. I don't necessarily want to block "bvstate" in the robots.txt as it will prohibit Google from seeing the reviews that were cutoff. Same response for prohibiting Google from crawling "bvstate" in Paramters section of Webmaster Console. Should I just keep my fingers crossed that Google honors the rel canonical tag? Home Depot is another site that has this same issue: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k0MBLFcu2PoJ:www.homedepot.com/p/DUROCK-Next-Gen-1-2-in-x-3-ft-x-5-ft-Cement-Board-172965/202263276%23!bvstate%3Dct:r/pg:2/st:p/id:202263276+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | redgatst1 -
How to Set Up Canonical Tags to Eliminate Duplicate Content Error
Google Webmaster Tools under HTML improvements is showing duplicate meta descriptions for 2 similar pages. The 2 pages are for building address. The URL has several pages because there are multiple property listings for this building. The URLs in question are: www.metro-manhattan.com/601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan/page/3 www.metro-manhattan.com/601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan How do I correct this error using canonical tags? Do I enter the URL of the 1<sup>st</sup> page under “Canonical URL” under “Advanced” to show Google that these pages are one and the same? If so, do I enter the entire URL into this field (www.metro-manhattan.com /601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan) or an abbreviated version (/601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan)? Please see attached images. Thanks!! Alan rUspIzk 34aSQ7k
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Company name in title tags for lesser known brands - yes or no?
Hi Mozzers I read an interesting post over on Authority Labs this morning about title tag length and how Google changes the way they are displayed. The author Brian advises that, "if you want your title tag to remain unchanged, it's worth making sure that you're staying within the 50-59 character window and that your titles fit with the content of the page". This got me thinking... Given the limited amount of title tag characters that are now shown in the SERPs, I find it difficult to include a primary keyword, secondary keyword and the company name. So, if you're a lesser known brand is it worth sacrificing your company name in the title tags of deeper pages for a secondary keyword to help with rankings, or even a special offer to grab a users eye in the SERPs? What are people's views on this? Thanks Anthony
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tone_Agency0 -
Risk Using "Nofollow" tag
I have a lot of categories (like e-commerce sites) and many have page 1 - 50 for each category (view all not possible). Lots of the content on these pages are present across the web on other websites (duplicate stuff). I have added quality unique content to page 1 and added "noindex, follow" to page 2-50 and rel=next prev tags to the pages. Questions: By including the "follow" part, Google will read content and links on pages 2-50 and they may think "we have seen this stuff across the web….low quality content and though we see a noindex tag, we will consider even page 1 thin content, because we are able to read pages 2-50 and see the thin content." So even though I have "noindex, follow" the 'follow' part causes the issue (in that Google feels it is a lot of low quality content) - is this possible and if I had added "nofollow" instead that may solve the issue and page 1 would increase chance of looking more unique? Why don't I add "noindex, nofollow" to page 2 - 50? In this way I ensure Google does not read the content on page 2 - 50 and my site may come across as more unique than if it had the "follow" tag. I do understand that in such case (with nofollow tag on page 2-50) there is no link juice flowing from pages 2 - 50 to the main pages (assuming there are breadcrumbs or other links to the indexed pages), but I consider this minimal value from an SEO perspective. I have heard using "follow" is generally lower risk than "nofollow" - does this mean a website with a lot of "noindex, nofollow" tags may hurt the indexed pages because it comes across as a site Google can't trust since 95% of pages have such "noindex, nofollow" tag? I would like to understand what "risk" factors there may be. thank you very much
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Can't find X-Robots tag!
Hi all. I've been checking out http://www.unthankbooks.com/ as it seems to have some indexing problems. I ran a server header check, and got a 200 response. However, it also shows the following: X-Robots-Tag:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO
noindex, nofollow It's not in the page HTML though. Could it be being picked up from somewhere else?0 -
Noindex : Do Follow or No Follow Tags?
Hello, I have a website with tags (which have the noindex tag) on each article post. I've been told that I should noindex/nofollow these tag pages, because they are getting link juice passed to them, and since they aren't getting indexed, it's wasting link juice to those pages, when the link juice could be passed to a page that is actually getting indexed. What are your thoughts on this? Also, what would be the point to noindex/follow a page, if you are noindexing that page? Isn't it just wasting link juice? What is the proper SEO way to optimize tags.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Multi Langes Blog on Multi languages Website
Hello! I need your Idea. I have my website in 4 languages. for example: domain.com/en domain.com/fr etc.. up to 4 languages. And i run at the moment domain.com/blog but now, i like to invest on content on all languages. What is your idea ? domain.com/en/blog or domain.com/blog/en/ or blog.domain.com/en/ blog.domain.com/fr/ or to use another word instead "blog" for example to use domain.com/en/magazine or domain.com/en/now or another word? what do you prefer me?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | leadsprofi0 -
Use of the Canonical Tag, Both Internally and Cross Domain
I've seen the cross domain canonical not work at all in my test cases. And an interesting point was brought to my attention today. That point was that in order for the canonical tag to work, the page that you are referencing needs to have the exact same content. And that this was the whole point of the canonical tag, not for it to be used as a 301 but for it to consolidate pages with the same content. I want to know if this is true. Does the page you reference with a canonical tag have to have the same exact content? And what have been your experiences with using the canonical tag referencing another page on a different domain that has the same exact subject matter but not the exact duplicate content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GearyLSF372