Why Canonical error?
-
I just got my SEOMOZ run and it says I have a CANONICAL ERROR:
Scorpio Earrings - 7mm Stud - Sterling Silver
http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm
I'm not sure why--I only changed the <title>tag--not the URL.</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">Why would this generate a canonical error?</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">Kathleen</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">astrojewelry.com</span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p></title>
-
The Rel="Canonical" notice has nothing to do with changing your title tags... likely just a coincidence. Its not really an error either. All the SEOMoz crawler is doing is notifying you that the page has a canonical tag on it. Though I don't see a canonical tag on the link you posted above so I don't know why that page would have been listed unless it had one once and has since been removed.
-
It's REL CANONICAL "notice".
I'm getting them on pages I've changed the TITLE on. Why would I get a canonical notice on a page I only changed the meta title tag on?
I don't get it!
Kathleen
-
I can't access your SEOmoz report. What does the error message say? And are there any other URLs provided in the error message?
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
-
Rel=Canonical For Landing Pages
We have PPC landing pages that are also ranking in organic search. We've decided to create new landing pages that have been improved to rank better in natural search. The PPC team however wants to use their original landing pages so we are unable to 301 these pages to the new pages being created. We need to block the old PPC pages from search. Any idea if we can use rel=canonical? The difference between old PPC page and new landing page is much more content to support keyword targeting and provide value to users. Google says it's OK to use rel=canonical if pages are similar but not sure if this applies to us. The old PPC pages have 1 paragraph of content followed by featured products for sale. The new pages have 4-5 paragraphs of content and many more products for sale. The other option would be to add meta noindex to the old PPC landing pages. Curious as to what you guys think. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
Quest about 404 Errors
About two months ago, we deleted some unnecessary pages on our website that were no longer relevant. However, MOZ is still saying that these deleted pages are returning 404 errors when a crawl test is done. The page is no longer there, at least that I can see. What is the best solution for this? I have a page that similar to the older page, so is it a good choice to just redirect the bad page to my good page? If so, what's the best way to do this. I found some useful information searching but none of it truly pertained to me. I went around my site to make sure there were no old links that directed traffic to the non existent page, and there are none.
Technical SEO | | Meier0 -
Schema Markup Errors - Priority or Not?
Greetings All... I've been digging through the search console on a few of my sites and I've been noticing quite a few structured data errors. Most of the errors are related to: hcard, hentry and hatom. Most of them are missing author & entry-title, while the other one is missing: fn. I recently saw an article on SEL about Google's focus on spammy mark-up. The sites I use are built and managed by vendors, so I would have to impress upon them the impact of these errors and have them prioritize, then fix them. My question is whether or not this should be prioritized? Should I have them correct these errors sooner than later or can I take a phased approach? I haven't noticed any loss in traffic or anything like that, I'm more focused on what negative impact a "phased approach" could have. Any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | AfroSEO0 -
Content Duplication and Canonical Tag settings
Hi all, I have a question regarding content duplication.My site has posted one fresh content in the article section and set canonical in the same page for avoiding content duplication._But another webmaster has taken my post and posted the same in his site with canonical as his site url. They have not given to original source as well._May I know how Google will consider these two pages. Which site will be affected with content duplication by Google and how can I solve this issue?If two sites put canonical tags in there own pages for the same content how the search engine will find the original site which posted fresh content. How can we avoid content duplication in this case?
Technical SEO | | zco_seo0 -
How to correct a google canonical issue?
So when I initially launched my website I had an issue where I didn't properly set my canonical tags and all my pages got crawled. Now in looking at the search engine results I see a number of the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged to the correct page showing up in the results. What is the best way to correct this issue with google? Also I noticed that while initially I was ranking well for the main pages, now those results have disappeared entirely and deeper in the rankings I am finding the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged. Please Help.
Technical SEO | | jackaveli0 -
302 error removing site from results
I have a client who had a screwy url structure based off of parameters and all. They hired a developer that added the keyword to the end of the url and set up 302 redirects to the new keyword included url. Since then the entire site has virtually gone missing in the results but it is not penalized. I put in a request with webmaster tools for reconsideration and they said there was no penalty. I only just found the 302 problem today and think this is probably the problem. Could this remove a site from the search results?
Technical SEO | | webfeatseo0 -
406 errors
Just started seeing 406 errors on our last crawl (all jpg related). Seomoz found 670 of these on my site when there were 0 before. I have checked the MIME and everything seems to be in the right order. So could it be that Seomoz-crawler is showing errors that aren't really errors?
Technical SEO | | smines0 -
Funky 404 error on reports
The report is showing a 404 error where a URL is being appended to the end of the address. It does not show up on the website of on the Sitemap so am wondering if I am missing something or is it a system error?
Technical SEO | | ccbseo0