Question on canonicals
-
hi community
let's say i have to 2 e-commerce sites selling the same English books in different currencies - one of the site serves the UK market ( users can purchase in sterling) while another one European markets ( user can purchase in euro). Sites are identical.
SEO wise, while the "European" site homepage has a good ranking across major search engines in europe, product pages do not rank very well at all. Since site is a .com too it s hard to push it in local search engines.
I would like then to push one of the sites across all search engines,tackling duplicate content etc.Geotargeting would make the rest.
I would like to add canonicals tag pointing at the UK version across all EU site product pages, while leaving the EU homepage rank.
I have 2 doubts though:
-
is it ok to have canonical tags pointing at an external site.
-
is it ok to have part of a site with canonical tags, while other parts are left ranking?
-
-
Hi there,
While I agree with Logan that hreflang may actually be your best bet, in response to those specific questions:
-
Cross-domain canonicals are not inherently problematic.
-
By my understanding, at least, you're free to use rel="canonical" whenever you deem appropriate.
-
-
Hi,
It sounds like you should be using hreflang tags. These tags work similar to canonical tags, but help different country-specific versions of Google index content meant for searchers in those geographies. You can read up on the how/why here: https://moz.com/learn/seo/hreflang-tag
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" again
Hello everyone, I should rel="canonical" my 2 languages website /en urls to the original version without /en. Can I do this from the header.php? Should I rel="canonical" each /en page (eg. en/contatti, en/pagina) separately or can I do all from the general before the website title? Thanks if someone can help.
Technical SEO | | socialengaged0 -
Wordpress Categories and Over-Optimization Question
I would like to switch my sidebar from listing Category Name with posts listed below each- to a concise custom menu. This custom menu would list the top three products I am promoting first, and then go on to list the categories on my site. Currently it looks like this (but with 6 categories, with between 7-10 items in each - this is on EVERY page) Widgets
Technical SEO | | PrivatePartners
-Green Widget
-Blue Widget Gidwets
-Big Gidwet
-Small Gidwet I rank well in google right now, but I am concerned that changing my sidebar will result in a penalty. Maybe for over-optimizing my top three products I promote, or possibly for trying to control the flow of link juice. Can anyone chime in here who has adjusted their site structure within wordpress, and tell me what you found worked best? ** Before anyone asks**, this structure does work much better for the user. My sidebar now is massive, and is confusing even to me.0 -
Rel=Canonical Help
The site in question is www.example.com/example. The client has added a rel=canonical tag to this page as . In other words, instead of putting the tag on the pages that are not to be canonical and pointing them to this one, they are doing it backwards and putting the same URL as the canonical one as the page they are putting the tag on. They have done this with thousands of pages. I know this is incorrect, but my question is, until the issue is resolved, are these tags hurting them at all just being there?
Technical SEO | | rock220 -
Question/Concern about URL structure
Hey! I have some doubts concerning structuring a websites URL’s and what would be the best practise for this case. The site has 4 (main) categories with a maximum of 4 products in each category. For example: domain -> category (natural-stones) -> product (flooring) Which I would give the follow url: www.companysite.com//natural-stones/flooring Nothing odd so far, but here is the tricky part: the category isn’t an actual page a user wouldn’t be able to visit. The category is just an item in the mainmenu. If a user hovers over the category in the main menu they will get a dropdown in which they can select a product. E.g. flooring, wall strips etc. My question is: Is the url structure as I suggested: www.companysite.com//natural-stones/flooring the best practise. Even though the category isn’t an actually page. Or would it be better to structure the site: www.companysite.com/flooring My concern with this type of structure would be that the site would seem ‘flat’ with in-depth structure. Or would a third (and maybe best?) option be to create an actual page for the category itself. Thanks for taking the time to help me with my question/concern. If you need more information let me know.
Technical SEO | | RvG0 -
2 questions about linkbuilding
1. Are these types of sites bad to submit a link to? http://www.mompack.com/mom2mom/ 2. If I submit my product for another blog to review (in turn they write a post for me with links to my website), is this GOOD? Look forward to hearing back from you, thanks
Technical SEO | | ChrisTS0 -
Rel=canonical for similar (not exact) content?
Hi all, We have a software product and SEOMOZ tools are currently reporting duplicate content issues in the support section of the website. This is because we keep several versions of our documentation covering the current version and previous 3-4 versions as well. There is a fair amount of overlap in the documentation. When a new version comes out, we simply copy the documentation over, edit it as necessary to address changes and create new pages for the new functionality. This means there is probably an 80% or so overlap from one version to the next. We were previously blocking Google (using robots.txt) from accessing previous versions of the sofware documentation, but this is obviously not ideal from an SEO perspective. We're in the process of linking up all the old versions of the documenation to the newest version so we can use rel=canonical to point to the current version. However, the content isn't all exact duplicates. Will we be penalized by Google because we're using rel=canonical on pages that aren't actually exact duplicates? Thanks, Darren.
Technical SEO | | dgibbons0 -
Robots.txt and canonical tag
In the SEOmoz post - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/robot-access-indexation-restriction-techniques-avoiding-conflicts, it's being said - If you have a robots.txt disallow in place for a page, the canonical tag will never be seen. Does it so happen that if a page is disallowed by robots.txt, spiders DO NOT read the html code ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
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