Rel-canonical tag confusion
-
I had our web development company implement the rel-canonical tag on all pages of our website to get rid of the duplicate content months ago. However, when I use the On Page optimizer tool (in previous version) it would tell me I'm not using the rel-canonical tag correctly on the page I was grading and when I untagged use rel-canonical tag in our CMS (which was pointing to the correct page) my grade would go to an A. Now with the new version it says I'm using it wrong either way, when I have the tag used in my CMS and everything else is good I have a B, but one I click to not use Rel-canonical tag I have a C. Both ways it shows up in On-page tool without a check in Apprpriate Use of Rel Canonical.
I've attached pictures. In C version it says - Canonical URL "/info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
In B version: Canonical URL "/info/solutions/"
What am I doing wrong and how do i fix this? Because ALL of my grades have dropped to Bs and Cs.
Thanks!
iklEHOjJLZE4966 [URL]]([URL=http://imgur.com/5BYcV][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5BYcV.jpg[/IMG][/URL]) 5BYcV
-
The tag should work fine with the partial URL.
If you are still concerned about the warning, try adding the base href tag within the of your page. It would be as follows:
<base href="http://www.aircycle.com/">
This tag explicitly specifies the base URL to which all partial URLs are built upon for a given page. Try adding this tag to just the one page, then running the report again to see if that resolves the issue. If it does, then you know what change the tool is requesting.
To be clear, the canonical tag you are using should be fine for search engines assuming there is no other issue. This may be a specific issue with the tool.
Since testing the base href tag, and the full URL are relatively quick and easy to do, my suggestion is to spend 10 minutes performing these tests to see the results. If the tests work, then you can contact the SEOmoz help desk and report your findings as an issue with the tool. It could be a bug or limitation with the tool.
-
So does the tag still work with the partial URL or no? It worked before, so I'm not sure what the ordeal is now but that the new CMS is causing SEOmoz some difficulty reading this.
I'd have to have my web development company fix it to the full URL.
-
I am going to take my best guess, which would need to be tested.
The tool is seeing a partial URL and it does not like it. The best way to confirm the issue is add the complete URL and then test the page. If it passes, then I am correct.
<link href='http://www.aircycle.com/info/solutions/' rel='canonical' /> -
the missing one just shows the Canonical url listing the rest of the URL twice.
B version: "/info/solutions/"
c version: "/Info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
-
-
The first and third images appear the same to me, and the second image is a broken link.
"/info/solutions/" is not a complete URL. It can't be indexed.
Can you possibly share the URL to an example of a web page with this issue?
![http://i.imgur.com/5BYcV.jpg[/IMG][/URL]](http://i.imgur.com/5BYcV.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D){kind=link}
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
-
H1 tag Audit & Image Alt Tag Audit Tools
Hi Mozzers, Anyone know of a good FREE tool that has no limits to use to scrape my site for H1 tags & image alt tags by page? Ideally it would produce a report with a list of page URLs, corresponding H1 tags and each image alt tag on each page. Anyone? Bueller?
Moz Pro | | dsinger0 -
How can I deal with tag page duplicate issues
The Moz crawler reported some dupliated issues. Many of them have to do with tags.
Moz Pro | | IamKovacs
Each tag has a link, and as some articles are under several tags, these come up as duplicate content. I read Dr Peter's piece on Canonical stuff, but it's not clear to me if any of these are the solution. Perhaps the solution lies somewhere else? Maybe I need to block the robots from these urls (But that seems counter-SEO-productive) Thanks
Kovacs0 -
Huge spike in crawl errors today - mozbot ignoring noindex tag?
Hi Mozzers, Today I received a ton of errors and warnings in my weekly crawl due to the mozbot crawling my noindex'd search results pages, such as this - http://www.consumerbase.com/Mailing-Lists.html?q=Construction&type=bus&channel=all&page=7&order=title&orderBy=DESC See image: http://screencast.com/t/qaZzq78j2Udx Anyone else seen a similar error this week with their crawl? Thanks!
Moz Pro | | Travis-W0 -
Rankings confusion in pro campaign
Hello Moz-world! I recently set up a new campaign, and the crawl is still in the process of wrapping up (been 4 days). When I look at my rankings it tells me "not in the top 50" then when I scroll over, it shows me that my client is ranking in position 3, in the instance of one keyword. Anyone know why there is a discrepancy between what the report shows, and what it shows when you mouse over the rankings? Thanks! Tyler
Moz Pro | | kbaltzell0 -
Site Explorer shows links as followable but they have nofollow tags
Hello, I am looking at site explorer and sites linking to my site moneyfact.co.uk. I've got thousands of links showing as 'followable' but when i check them they have rel="nofollow" tags. e.g: http://www.dianomioffers.co.uk/partner/moneyfacts.co.uk/brochures.epl?partner=93&partner_id=93&partner_variant_id=33 Why would they show as followable when the links are nofollowed? Thanks Steve
Moz Pro | | SteveBrumpton0 -
Blogger Duplicate Content? and Canonical Tag
Hello: I previously asked this question, but I would love to get more perspectives on this issue. In Blogger, there is an archive page and label(s) page(s) created for each main post. Firstly, does Google, esp. considering Blogger is their product, possibly see the archive and tag pages created in addition to the main post as partial duplicate content? The other dilemma is that each of these instances - main post, archive, label(s) - claim to be the canonical. Does anyone have any insight or experience with this issue and Blogger and how Google is treating the partial duplicates and the canonical claims to the same content (even though the archives and label pages are partial?) I do not see anything in Blogger settings that allows altering these settings - in fact, the only choices in Blogger settings are 'Email Posting' and 'Permissions' (could it be that I cannot see the other setting options because I am a guest and not the blog owner?) Thanks so much everyone! PS - I was not able to add the blog as a campaign in SEOmoz Pro, which in and of itself is odd - and which I've never seen before - could this be part of the issue? Are Blogger free blogs not able to be crawled for some reason via SEOmoz Pro?
Moz Pro | | holdtheonion0 -
Do crawl reports see canonical tags?
Greetings, I just redesigned my site, www.funderstanding.com, and have the old site pointing to the new site via canonical URLs. I had a new crawl test run and it showed a large amount of duplicate content. Does the SEO Moz crawl tool validate canonical urls and adjusts the duplicate content count or is this note considered? FYI, I sent from no duplicate content to having 865 errors since the redesign went up so that seems suspicious. I would think though that assuming the canonical tag were used properly, and I hope it is?, that this would not be a problem?? All help with this is most appreciated. Eric
Moz Pro | | Ericc220 -
Missing Meta Description tags?
I just ran our first SEOMoz pro report and it's showing that every article page on our site is missing descriptions. However, it's visible on the source and Google seems to be picking them up.
Moz Pro | | notebooks
Can you please tell me why SEOMoz is makring them as missing? Are we doing something wrong here? http://notebooks.com0