Appropriate use of rel canonical
-
Hey Guys,I'm a bit stuck. My on-page grade indicated the following two issues and I need to find how how to fix both issues.If you have a solution, could you please let me know how to address these issues? It's all a bit intimidating at the moment!!Thank you so much..****************************************************************************************************************************************Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.
Recommendation: We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.
No More Than One Canonical URL Tag
The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.
Recommendation: Remove all but a single canonical URL tag
-
Yeah, I'd really tackle this error first, as the other one could be a false alarm. It sounds like you've got multiple canonical tags on a single page, which Google can't interpret very well (and that might just ignore it or use the wrong one). This often indicates that your CMS is double-placing tags and could signal broader problems.
-
Since the error message you get is "no more than one canonical URL tag," I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the affected pages have more than one canonical.
You can check this by looking at the source code of the page (which you can do by going into the menu of whatever browser you are using and choosing "page source" or "view source"- it is different in different browsers- look around or use the browser's help feature) and doing a search for rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>"; this should only appear once. If it appears more than once, remove the ones you don't want.
The canonical should be the URL of the page that you want Google to see as the one to index and return in results. For example, if you are using canonicals because you have tracking codes appended to a URL and that creates the appearance of duplicate content, use the URL without the codes as the canonical one.
Just remember that when you put a canonical URL on a page, you are telling Google to ignore the actual URL of that page and consider it to be the canonical URL instead.
-
I will try and find out all of this information... Just give me a bit of time to figure it out. Thanks for being helpful.. I'm loving moz to death! It's a great community
-
First don't worry we are here for you! Second to me "Rel=" is one of the more misunderstood tools and there are a lot of questions surrounding it's implementation. Here are a few reference points to learn from as well.
- http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
- http://moz.com/community/q/fixing-appropriate-use-of-rel-canonical
- http://www.webceo.com/blog/how-to-use-relcanonical-properly/
- Is there an Advantage of using Rel=”canonical” over 301 redirect? By Matt Cutts
Ok so first how are you currently using the tag? Could you post a screenshot or code example as well as a link to the site? Basically you want to make sure that you are using the Tag as a way to deal with duplicate or similar pages as a way to tell Search Engines what the master version of the page is. In my opinion I would try very hard to avoid dupes and normalize URLs in the first place, meaning the tag is more of a last resort option after you have exhausted other methods. Also there are so many ways a Rel="canonical" can go wrong so seeing how your implementing it would help. So try to let us see how your using it as that would help me give a more targeted solution.
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
-
Landing pages for paid traffic and the use of noindex vs canonical
A client of mine has a lot of differentiated landing pages with only a few changes on each, but with the same intent and goal as the generic version. The generic version of the landing page is included in navigation, sitemap and is indexed on Google. The purpose of the differentiated landing pages is to include the city and some minor changes in the text/imagery to best fit the Adwords text. Other than that, the intent and purpose of the pages are the same as the main / generic page. They are not to be indexed, nor am I trying to have hidden pages linking to the generic and indexed one (I'm not going the blackhat way). So – I want to avoid that the duplicate landing pages are being indexed (obviously), but I'm not sure if I should use noindex (nofollow as well?) or rel=canonical, since these landing pages are localized campaign versions of the generic page with more or less only paid traffic to them. I don't want to be accidentally penalized, but I still need the generic / main page to rank as high as possible... What would be your recommendation on this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ostesmorbrod0 -
Syntax: 'canonical' vs "canonical" (Apostrophes or Quotes) does it matter?
I have been working on a site and through all the tools (Screaming Frog & Moz Bar) I've used it recognizes the canonical, but does Google? This is the only site I've worked on that has apostrophes. rel='canonical' href='https://www.example.com'/> It's apostrophes vs quotes. Could this error in syntax be causing the canonical not to be recognized? rel="canonical"href="https://www.example.com"/>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ccox10 -
MedicalEntity Schemas: Examples of Sites Using It?
Anyone know of any medical or health-related sites that have widely implemented medical schema types? For example: MedicalCode, MedicalTest, MedicalSignorSymptom, etc. and others listed here: http://schema.org/MedicalEntity I've reviewed the examples on schema.org, but it would he helpful to see some live examples in the wild. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Allie_Williams1 -
Using rel=alternate hreflang element on ccTLDs
We have multilingual websites with some content variations but 60% of the content on site remains the same. Is it still advisable to use:rel=alternate hreflang option on ccTLDs when ccTLDs are in itself strong signal for Google to display result in respective countries 1. example.com 2. example.co.uk 3. example.co.jp 4. example.de
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CyrilWilson0 -
Adding rel=next / prev to pagination that uses Ajax?
Hi I have just been informed that I should be using the rel=next / rel=prev markup on my category pages and search results pages that use pagination. How do i add these in? Is it just the simple case of adding rel=next in the<a href="" for="" item="" in="" the="" pagination?<="" p=""></a> <a href="" for="" item="" in="" the="" pagination?<="" p="">Also does this work if your are using AJAX - on page load it displays the search / category pages then uses AJAX for additional pages so there is no page refresh</a> <a href="" for="" item="" in="" the="" pagination?<="" p="">Many Thanks</a>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ocelot0 -
Quickseoresults.com - Anyone used them?
Has anyone had any experience with or used quickseoresults.com? I'm just looking into them now. They seem to offer a 30 day free trial based on 'white hat' tactics that gives results. You can then pay to continue their services. They seem to base their services heavily around link building, so I'm dubious.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0 -
Canonical & noindex? Use together
For duplicate pages created by the "print" function, seomoz says its better to use noindex (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not) and JohnMu says its better to use canonical http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6c18b666a552585d&hl=en What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1 -
Penalty for using expired domain?
I was wondering if anyone has any experience using dropped/expired domains with old "clean" backlinks for new sites. Is there be a penalty for doing this (with good intent)? Worth a reconsideration request?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EdgySEO0