Is a canonical tag required for already redirecting URLs?
-
Hi everyone,
One of our websites was changed to non-www to www. The non-www pages were then redirected to avoid duplicate issue. Moz and Screaming Frog flagged a number of these redirected pages as missing canonical tags. Is the canonical tag still required for pages already redirecting? Or is it detecting another possible duplicate page that we haven't redirected yet?
Also, the rankings for this website isn't improving despite having us optimising these pages as best as we could. I'm wondering if this canonical tag issue may be affecting it.
Thank you.
-
Thanks, everyone! We'll consider adding these canonical tags in the future, but won't flag it as urgent at the moment
-
Hi Nikki
The 301 from non www to www is a simple 301 tag from one to the other which will carry about 85% of the 'juice' which was attributed to the old page.
It is best practice to have a self referencing canonical on the new www page - this is so then when other sites like Twitter add a UTM to the end of the URL Google only recognises the single canonicalized URL.
It may be this that MOZ and Screaming Frog was picking up on this.
Regards Nigel
-
Hey Nikki,
If the page is 301 redirected then there is no need for canonical tag. The 301 has more "power" against duplicates because not all browsers follow the canonical tag.
Regarding your page optimization, it's just the beginning. Let's dig into link building and create high quality, topical link portfolio. This should boost your traffic.
Hope it helps. Cheers, Martin
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
-
Do I need Redirects?
I've recently changed my old static website to a WordPress one. I'd like to know what do do (if anything) about my old links. For example a page on my old site was: www.iainmoran.com/corporate-magician.html - now I'm using WordPress, the url is:
Technical SEO | | iainmoran
www.iainmoran.com/corporate-magician/ My question is, do I need to set up redirects on these old pages (which no longer exist or will Google eventually re-crawl my site and update the links themselves? I'm using the Yoast SEO Plugin for WP and it creates a sitemap, which of course will have my new pages on. But don't want Google to penalise me for having broken links, etc. Many thanks, Iain.0 -
Temporary redirects
why is wordpress creating redirects from trackbacks and what can i do about it? according to seomoz i have several of these kinds of temporary redirects: http://redlandsorthodontics.com/about-us-2/meet-the-staff/redlands-orthodontics/trackback/ redirects to http://redlandsorthodontics.com/about-us-2 what are trackbacks anyway since i didn't purposely create them?
Technical SEO | | dad7more0 -
Canonical URL Issue
Hi Everyone, I'm fairly new here and I've been browsing around for a good answer for an issue that is driving me nuts here. I tried to put the canonical url for my website and on the first 5 or 6 pages I added the following script SEOMoz reported that there was a problem with it. I spoke to another friend and he said that it looks like it's right and there is nothing wrong but still I get the same error. For the URL http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html I used the following: <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html" /> Is there anything wrong with it? Many thanks in advance for the attention to my question.. 🙂 Alex
Technical SEO | | influxmedia0 -
URL structure
Hi, I am in the process of having a site created which will focus on the Xbox 360, PS3, Wii and PS3 Vita. I would appreciate some advice when it comes to the URL structure. Each category mentioned above will have the following subsections News
Technical SEO | | WalesDragon
Reviews
Screenshots
Trailers Would the best url structure be? www.domain.com/xbox-360/news/news-story-headline
www.domain.com/ps3/reviews/ps3-game-name Thanks in advance for your help and suggestions.0 -
Canonical URL
In our campaign, I see this notices Tag value
Technical SEO | | shebinhassan
florahospitality.com/ar/careers.aspx Description
Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. What does it mean? Because If I try to view the source code of our site, it clearly gives me the canonical url.0 -
Redirect or not to redirect
We are rebuilding a website and try to get rid of errors. The content remains exactly the same but we correct the code and make it load faster. The site has quite many backlinks and I can't decide whether to remove .html endings from the urls and 301 redirect to the new ones or leave them with the older ending. If I remove the endings how much of the link juice will be passed? Anyone any idea?
Technical SEO | | sesertin0 -
Blank Canonical URL
So my devs have the canonical URL loaded up on pages automatically, and in most cases this gets done correctly. However we ran across a bug that left some of these blank like so: Does anyone know what effect that would have? I am trying to provide a priority for this so I can say "FIX IT NOW" or "Fix it after the other 'FIX IT NOW' type of items". Let me know if you have any ideas. I just want to be sure I am not telling google that all of these pages are like the home page. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | SL_SEM0 -
Is the full URL necessary for successful Canonical Links?
Hi, my first question and hopefully an easy enough one to answer. Currently in the head element of our pages we have canonical references such as: (Yes, untidy URL...we are working on it!) I am just trying to find out whether this snippet of the full URL is adequete for canonicalization or if the full domain is needed aswell. My reason for asking is that the SEOmoz On-Page Optimization grading tool is 'failing' all our pages on the "Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical" value. I have been unable to find a definitive answer on this, although admittedly most examples do use the full URL. (I am not the site developer so cannot simply change this myself, but rather have to advise him in a weekly meeting). So in short, presumably using the full URL is best practise, but is it essential to its effectiveness when being read by the search engines? Or could there be another reason why the "Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical" value is not being green ticked? Thank you very much, I appreciate any advice you can give.
Technical SEO | | rmkjersey0