Confused about rel="canonical"
-
I'm receiving a duplicate content error in my reports for www.example.com and www.example.com/index.htm. Should I put the rel="canonical" on the index page and point it to www.example.com? And if I have other important pages where rel="canonical" is being suggested do I place the rel="canonical" on that page? For example if www.example/product is an important page would I place on that page?
-
I haven't considered this option, thanks for the tip.
-
I've read that a 301 redirect hurts your page rank. Is that true? Thanks for pointing me to that page. I've seen and read that page a long time ago and at the time it was like a foreign language. Now it makes more sense.
-
I dunno that Google gives you a good example of why you would use it, just where. Canonical, for all intents ard purposes, lets you pick which of your duplicates gets indexed.
Here's a real world example. Newegg.com has, literally, tens of thousands of products. Their site is in site.com/?id=STRING but they do a lot of URL based tracking. As such, you have a lot of site.com/?id=STRING&ref=1234 Now, Google will see all of those extra query string pages as unique pages with duplicate content. Newegg uses canonical to ensure that Google ignores all but the core product page.
So, why use a 301 and why use canonical? A 301 removes the page from the index. Canonical leaves the page indexed but transfers PR to the "real" page and helps avoid duplicate content.
-
To expand on what Petra said, have you considered using your .htaccess file to permanently redirect all version of your home page to www.example.com (and other pages as well)? This can be done in conjunction with rel="canonical".
SEOmoz offers a Redirection Best Practices doc that can help you out.
-
To your first question:
www.example.com/index.html --> use a 301 redirect to www.example.comRegarding rel canonical --> there the usage is explained pretty well:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.htmlYou add the tag to specify your preferred version inside the section of the duplicate content URLs.
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
Almost every one of my product has this message: Rel Canonical (Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. ) What is the best way to correct this?
Technical SEO | | tiffany11030 -
Canonical URL
Hi there Our website www.snowbusiness.com has a non www version and this one has 398 backlinks. What is the best way of transfering this link value if i establish the www. address as the canonical URL? Thanks, Ben
Technical SEO | | SnowFX0 -
What to do with "show all" page
Hello, What should I do with the following situation: In e-commerce shop I have an option to "show all products" (list all products in one page) - do I need to put canonnical or 301 redirect to somewhere or should I leave as normal page - I think google consider this is as duplicate since everything is the same (only number of products is different) ? Regards, Nenad
Technical SEO | | Uniline0 -
Rel="canonical" of .html/ to .html
Hi, could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless? I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls. http://www.example.com/petra.html/
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
to
http://www.example.com/petra.html I mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ??? Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical. What is your position here?0 -
How unique does a page need to be to avoid "duplicate content" issues?
We sell products that can be very similar to one another. Product Example: Power Drill A and Power Drill A1 With these two hypothetical products, the only real difference from the two pages would be a slight change in the URL and a slight modification in the H1/Title tag. Are these 2 slight modifications significant enough to avoid a "duplicate content" flagging? Please advise, and thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | WhiteCap0 -
Problem with Rel Canonical
Background: 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. Clearly I am doing something wrong here, how do I check my various pages to see where the problem lies and how do I go about fixing it?
Technical SEO | | SallySerfas0 -
On-Page Report Card & Rel Canonical
Hello, I ran one of our pages through the On-Page Report Card. Among the results we are getting a lower grade due to the following "critical factor" : Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Explanation 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. This is for an e-commerce site, and the canonical links are inserted automatically by the cart software. The cart is also creating the canonical url as a relative link, not an absolute URL. In this particular case it's a self-referential link. I've read a ton on this and it seems that this should be okay (I also read that Bing might have an issue with this). Is this really an issue? If so, what is the best practice to pass this critical factor? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | rwilson-seo0 -
Having both <title>and <meta name="title"...> on a web page?</title>
Hi All, Client of mine using reversed Meta Tags format in their website and Honestly i never saw such Meta Tags formats. In my opinion having 2 Title tags and wrong reversed description tag is not correct and the needs to be removed, and other tags need to be changed,too But they said that it probably doesn't make a difference because weird thing is Search Engines are apparently able to index them ,So they don't think it affects search engine results and won't remove it just based on opinion. So should i persist in correcting them or just hope for the best and ignore it?!?!?! Thanks!
Technical SEO | | DigitalJungle0