Href Lang & Canonical Tags
-
Hi
I have 2 issues appearing on my site audit, for a number of pages. I don't think I actually have an issue but just want to make sure.
Using this page as an example - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/0-5-l-capacity-round-safety-can-149p210
The errors I get are:
1. Conflicting hreflang and rel=canonical Canonical page points to a different language URL - when using href & canonicals, it states I need a self referential canonical .
The page above is a SKU page, so we include a canonical back to the original model page so we don't get lots of duplicate content issues.
Our canonical will point to - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/justrite-round-safety-cans
2. No self referencing hreflang.
Are these big issues? I'd think the bigger issue would be if I add self referencing canonicals and end up with lots of duplicate content.
Any advice would be much appreciated
-
Ah, that makes complete sense thank you!
-
Hi Becky,
The solution to your problem is to remove the hreflang tags from the canonicalized product pages.
Doing this will leave only your canonical URLs specifying hreflang - with these pages also having the self-referring canonical tag in place.
Leaving the canonical tag in place on the duplicate product pages will continue to solve your duplicate content issues - no need to specify hreflang there.
Hope this helps!
Cheers,
David
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
-
Question on AMP
I'd like to utilize AMP for faster loading for one of my clients. However, it is essential that this client have chat. My developer is having trouble incorporating chat with AMP, and he claims that it isn't possible to integrate the two. Can anyone advise me as to whether this is accurate? If it is true that AMP and chat aren't compatible, are there any solutions to this issue? I'd appreciate any leads on this. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
Faceted Navigation & SEO
Hi Is my faceted navigation bad for SEO?! example: http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/metal-cabinets-cupboards Thanks 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Use of Rel=Canonical
I have been pondering whether I am using this tag correctly or not. We have a custom solution which lays out products in the typical eCommerce style with plenty of tick box filters to further narrow down the view. When I last researched this it seemed like a good idea to implement rel=canonical to point all sub section pages at a 'view-all' page which returns all the products unfiltered for that given section. Normally pages are restricted down to 9 results per page with interface options to increase that. This combined with all the filters we offer creates many millions of possible page permutations and hence the need for the Canonical tag. I am concerned because our view-all pages get large, returning all of that section's product into one place.If I pointed the view-all page at say the first page of x results would that defeat the object of the view-all suggestion that Google made a few years back as it would require further crawling to get at all the data? Alternatively as these pages are just product listings, would NoIndex be a better route to go given that its unlikely they will get much love in Google anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | motiv80 -
Do different meta titles & descriptions delete the canonical origin?
Hi, hopefully anyone knows something about this case: There is a canonical tag on site "www.xyz.com**/de_de/" **refering to site "www.xyz.com/de-de/". If the meta title and descriptions are different on both sides - is there a problem that google will not pay attention to the canonical tag? Do both sides need the same title and canonical? Thanx for your answers! Cheers Heiko!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | heckert0 -
Rel Canonical on Home Page
I have a client who says they can't implement a 301 on their home page. They have tow different urls for their home page that are live and do not redirect. I know that the best solution would be to redirect one to the main URL but they say this isn't possible. So they implemented the rel canonical instead. Is this the second best solution for them if they can't redirect? Will the link juice be passed through the rel canonical? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlightAnalytics0 -
Canonical tag vs 301
What is the reason that 301 is preferred and not rel canonical tag when it comes to implementing redirect. Page rank will be lost in both cases. So, why prefer one over the other ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050 -
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 -
Meta keywords vs tags
On a blog from an SEO perspective how do you choose keywords to use in the "meta keyword tag" vs. "post tags"? Will it be different based on the search volume/competition of the keywords targeted?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | saravanans0