Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Broken canonical link errors
-
Hello,
Several tools I'm using are returning errors due to "broken canonical links". However, I'm not too sure why is that.
Eg.
Page URL: domain.com/page.html?xxxx
Canonical link URL: domain.com/page.html
Returns an error.Any idea why? Am I doing it wrong?
Thanks,
G -
Great, thanks for your note Paul, I will filter through as you suggest!
-
I would us a different
rel="canonical" only url for the canonical & kee the microdata link as just a link.
I agree it is probably Just the tool but from what I can see mixing microdata & the canonical is not the best way to go.
<link rel="canonical" href="http: example.com="" "=""></link rel="canonical" href="http:>
you want a free way to test up to 500 pages https://screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/ like Paul said any tool can be wrong but it looks like you should not mix the canonical something the end Users can click on
tom
-
Your understanding of canonical tags is correct, GhillC.
If Tools are showing errors for those canonical tags you've listed, then the tools are wrong.
As long as the protocol and subdomain prefix (or not) exactly match and the only difference is the exclusion of the parameters (the "?" and the stuff after it) then the canonicals are correct.
Any tool's reports have to be filtered through your own understanding and knowledge. They often get things wrong. That's on eof the key differences between experienced SEOs and less-experienced. They kow when to question what an automated tool is telling them. So good on ya for questioning the results!
Paul
-
Thanks both.
Though I do believe that I get a good enough understanding of the canonical tag structure.
What I don't understand is why some SEO tools are returning an error with few of these tags.Here is the page URL:
https://www.domain.com/ae/products/shopby/product-type-accessories.html?___store=en_aeAnd here is the canonical tag that returns the error:
As per your comment, I want the URL without the query string to rank and the traffic associated to the URL above to benefit "accessories.html".
At first I thought it was due to "itemprop" which technically should not be combined with a rel attribute (source: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31621308/itemprop-and-rel-attributes-on-same-element)
But since all the pages of the website I'm working on contains canonical tags with both elements and only a handful of them returns a canonical tag error, I guess it comes from something else. -
If you need anyone to back up what Roman said he's exactly right.
You need to add the canonical to your site so it is self-referencing I would not add it to any URLs that have parameters/query strings or any URL that you want to be in Google's index.
In your example you show the same page twice I added https:// just to make it a full URL for the example and please do that when you add the canonical's
With the rel canonical, you're telling Google that your parameter is not something you want to rank for
You want https://domain.com/page.html to rank
** not**
**Page URL: https://domain.com/page.html?xxxx **
So as Roman said you would add a rel canonical like this below. Please keep in mind when you add these you must add HTTP or HTTPS depending on what your site is up for as well as www. or non-www. & always use absolute URLs
For example, search crawlers might be able to reach your homepage in all of the following ways:
Cite: https://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization
More references
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
- https://moz.com/blog/rel-canonical
- https://varvy.com/rel/canonical.html
I hope that helps,
Tom
-
A canonical tag (aka "rel canonical") is a way of telling search engines that a specific URL represents the master copy of a page. Using the canonical tag prevents problems caused by identical or "duplicate" content appearing on multiple URLs. Practically speaking, the canonical tag tells search engines which version of a URL you want to appear in search results.
So if you have a page such as
www.mywesbite.com you should have a canonical tag on that page like this one
on your headerSo you should check your source code to check if the URL is ok or it's missing
These are some links you should read
Hope this information will answer your question
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
-
Does anyone know the linking of hashtags on Wix sites does it negatively or postively impact SEO. It is coming up as an error in site crawls 'Pages with 404 errors' Anyone got any experience please?
Does anyone know the linking of hashtags on Wix sites does it negatively or positively impact SEO. It is coming up as an error in site crawls 'Pages with 404 errors' Anyone got any experience please? For example at the bottom of this blog post https://www.poppyandperle.com/post/face-painting-a-global-language the hashtags are linked, but they don't go to a page, they go to search results of all other blogs using that hashtag. Seems a bit of a strange approach to me.
Technical SEO | | Mediaholix0 -
Should we Nofollow Social Links?
I've been asked the question of whether if we should nofollow all of our social links, would this be a wise thing to do? I'm not exactly getting a clear answer from search results and thought you guys would be best to ask 🙂 Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | JH_OffLimits0 -
Self-referencing links
I personally think that self-referencing links are silly. It's blatantly easy for Google to tell and my instinct says that the link juice for this would simply evaporate rather than passing back to itself. Does anyone have information backing me up from an authoritative source? I can't find any info about this linked to Matt Cutts, Rand or any of those I look up to.
Technical SEO | | IPROdigital0 -
Diagnosing Canonical Errors Is Screaming frog reliable?
Morning from suny & warm wetherby UK 🙂 On this page http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/how-we-care-for-you/right-to-manage/ screaming frog is citing a canonical error but I'm confused as this piece of code is in place: http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/About/right-to-manage" /> So my question is please - "Does this page http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/how-we-care-for-you/right-to-manage/ have a caninical error or is screaming frog useless? Other examples where screaming frog is picking up canonical errors include:
Technical SEO | | Nightwing
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/what-our-customers-say/right-to-manage/
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/buying-a-home/right-to-manage/ Oh forgot to say the preffered version is http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/About/right-to-manage/ Any insights welcvome 🙂0 -
Forum Profile Links
Are they really important? Many preach they are, and there are tonnes of services out there who give you thousands of forum profile links in no time. I strictly believe in genuine links built the hard way, and definitely don't want to get into anything which is black hat. Please suggest if building several Forum Profile Links is an appropriate way of building links?
Technical SEO | | KS__2 -
Do I need to add canonical link tags to pages that I promote & track w/ UTM tags?
New to SEOmoz, loving it so far. I promote content on my site a lot and am diligent about using UTM tags to track conversions & attribute data properly. I was reading earlier about the use of link rel=canonical in the case of duplicate page content and can't find a conclusive answer whether or not I need to add the canonical tag to these pages. Do I need the canonical tag in this case? If so, can the canonical tag live in the HEAD section of the original / base page itself as well as any other URLs that call that content (that have UTM tags, etc)? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | askotzko1 -
Is link cloaking bad?
I have a couple of affiliate gaming sites and have been cloaking the links, the reason I do this is to stop have so many external links on my sites. In the robot.txt I tell the bots not to index my cloaked links. Is this bad, or doesnt it really matter? Thanks for your help.
Technical SEO | | jwdesign0 -
Should there be a canonical tag on my 404 error page?
In my crawl diagnostics, I notice some 4xx client errors. They are appearing for pages that no longer exist, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Shouldn't they just be dealt as 404's? Anyway, on closer inspection I noticed that my 404 error page contains a canonical tag which points to the missing page. Could this be the issue? Is it a good idea to remove the canonical tag from this error page? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Leighm0