Canonical and Sitemap issue
-
Hi all,
I was told that I could change my homepage Canonical tag to match that of my XML sitemap, this sitemap is being generated for me automatically and shows the homepage as e.g. https://www.mysite.com/index.html, yet my Canonical tag has been set to https://www.mysite.com.
Google currently shows as https://www.mysite.com/ being indexed, but https://www.mysite.com/index.html is not currently displayed in search results.
Can someone please tell me if I should change the Canonical to the index.html version, or if I should do nothing, or remove the Canonical tag altogether?
Thank you for looking.
-
I agree with the others. Given "https://www.mysite.com/index.html is not currently displayed in search results", in all likelihood it is being redirected to https://www.mysite.com (and should be). So you don't want to change the canonical to the index.html version of the page only to have it redirected back to https://www.mysite.com. It'll unnecessarily slow the site and might even create a loop.
-
Thank you both, I'll leave it as it is, I'm not able to edit the XML my side sadly.
-
Yes, that's a good point. Canonicals are suggestions for Google, not commands.
-
I see your point, and don't worry about it. Sitemaps help Google find all of your pages and can provide certain other information, but they are not required so no need to overthink them. In general Google is pretty good at finding what it needs to find. And it will certainly find your homepage.
-
I agree with Linda here, I would leave the canonical tag as is. It is a cleaner, better looking URL for the SERPs. If anything, manually update the XML file to reflect the canonical version of the homepage. The main purpose of the XML sitemap is to help search engines crawl and index a website. The homepage is going to be the most frequently crawled page so Google will not have a problem finding it.
Also, do not worry about Google disliking the canonical pointing to .com instead of /index.html. If Google determines that is not the ideal URL for it's index it will ignore the canonical tag.
-
Hi,
Thanks, basically I was concerned that Google may not like that https://www.mysite.com/ was not in the sitemap, yet index.html was and the canonical was pointing to https://www.mysite.com.
If that makes any sense....
-
What are you trying to achieve? Do you particularly want the index.html version to be the canonical? The https://www.mysite.com/ version is more straightforward and what most people would expect your homepage URL to be.
Unless there is some pressing reason to do otherwise, I'd leave it the way it is.
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
-
W3C My site has 157 Errors, 146 warning(s) Is it an issue?
Is having this number of W3C errors & warnings an issue and will be impacting my site's performance? When the site was built 6 months ago my developers told me that it "was nothing to worry about", but I have read that any errors aren't good, let alone the huge number my site has? Your advice please Thanks Ash
Web Design | | AshShep10 -
Sitemap created on client's Joomla site but it is not showing up on site reports as existing? (Thumbs Up To Answers)
I am working with a web developer who built our client's site in Joomla. I seem to have a lot of issues with Joomla based sites. Any how, the site is www.pitgearusa.com and when we run site reports it is showing there is no xml sitemap. However he used a popular Joomla plugin for sitemaps called Xmap. Here is their url: http://www.jooxmap.com/ Can anyone provide any advice on what the website developer needs to do in order for the xml sitemap to function and "show up" on reports? Thanks Mashed Up
Web Design | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
How will engines deal with duplicate head elements e.g. title or canonicals?
Obviously duplicate content is never a good thing...on separate URL's. Question is, how will the engines deal with duplicate meta tags on the same page. Example Head Tag: <title>Example Title - #1</title> <title>Example Title - #2</title> My assumption is that Google (and others) will take the first instance of the tag, such that "Example Title - #1" and canonical = "http://www.example.com" would be considered for ranking purposes while the others are disregarded. My assumption is based on how SE's deal with duplicate links on a page. Is this a correct assumption? We're building a CMS-like service that will allow our SEO team to change head tag content on the fly. The easiest solution, from a dev perspective, is to simply place new/updated content above the preexisting elements. I'm trying to validate/invalidate the approach. Thanks in advance.
Web Design | | PCampolo0 -
Google search issue with exact domain
We had a site from Feb-2011 to Nov-2011 at the domain amcoexterminating.com. The site was pure HTML/CSS and the daily unique visitors steadily increased over that time. So all was fine. We then moved the site to a CMS (Joomla) on Dec. 6th. From that day forward, the daily visitors went into the tank. Before the move, if you typed "amcoexterminating.com" or "amco exterminating" into Google search, the site would be the first result (as you'd expect since those are the words that make up the actua domain). But we tried this yesterday and the site did not come up at all. NOT GOOD. It would work in Yahoo or Bing, but not in Google. So obviously, the problem with Google search directly affected the daily visitors. We just checked Webmaster tools yesterday (yes, this should have been done sooner, lesson learned) and it said "Site has severe health issues - Important page blocked by robots.txt". It listed the "important" page URL and it was just a link to an image. Regardless, I wiped out the Joomla created robots.txt file and added a new one and made it just say... User-agent: *Allow: / About 14 hours later, after the new robots.txt file was recognized by Google, the "severe health" message went away. However if I search in Google for "amcoexterminating.com", it still doesn't show up and the client is concerned (as they should be). Do you think the search engines just need more time to refresh? If so, once it refreshes, should the site show up first again right away? Or is it possible the robots.txt file had nothing to do with the issue? If so, what other things could I check into that might cause Google search to not find a site even if you search for exact domain name? Please share any and all things I should look into as I need to get this site showing in Google search again (as it was before moving to the CMS). Thanks!
Web Design | | MarathonMS0 -
Canonical Tag
I've been helping someone out with their website, and I noticed the person who built the site made the canonical tags like this:
Web Design | | StandUpCubicles
href="http://www.example.com/" rel="canonical" /> I'm use to seeing it how seomoz does it: Does this matter? Is it ok to have it inverted? They also have another canonical tag in there like this:
var hs_canonical_url = "http\x3A\x2F\x2Fwww.example.com\x2Fhome" Any idea what that is? Could it be hurting the site?0 -
Why is our sitemap not being indexed on Webmaster Tools?
Hi there, We have been having a problem with one of our websites. It appears as though someone has stolen our template and used it for themselves, but in the process also stole our analytics information. We have problems with the analytics, but are fixing that ourselves. The problem we have now is that when we tried to put in a sitemap into Google Webmaster Tools the URLs are submitted but have yet to be indexed. We have tried pinging them, but there has been no change. This is not a problem for our other websites which are very similar. What could be the problem here? For reference, the url is http://www.dentistinlittlerock.com Thank you for your responses in advance!
Web Design | | jid0 -
Are slimmed down mobile versions of a canonical page considered cloaking?
We are developing our mobile site right now and we are using a user agent sniffer to figure out what kind of device the visitor is using. Once the server knows whether it is a desktop or mobile browser it will deliver the appropriate template. We decided to use the same URL for both versions of the page rather than using m.websiteurl.com or www.websiteurl.mobi so that traffic to either version of these pages would register as a visit to the page. Will search engines consider this cloaking or is mobile "versioning" an acceptable practice? The pages in essence are the same, the mobile version will just leave out extraneous scripts and unnecessary resources to better display on a mobile device.
Web Design | | TahoeMountain400
