Rel=Canonical to Rewrite or original URL?
-
Working with a large number of duplicate pages due to different views of products. Rewriting URLs for the most linked page. Should rel=canonical point to the rewritten URL or the actual URL? Is there a way to see what the rewritten URL is within the crawl data?
I was taking the approach of rewriting only the base version of each page and then using a rel=canonical on the duplicate pages. Can anyone recommend a better or cleaner approach?
Haven't seen too many articles on retail SEO when faced with a less than optimized CMS.
Thanks!
-
We are using actual rewrites and then using rel=canonical for all sub pages.
-
If you are using rewriting in the web server software (like Apache), the rewritten URL is never exposed to users or search engines. Please clarify that you are actually rewriting URLs and not just redirecting them to the canonical version.
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
-
Which Version Url to Use for Canonical Tags and in General for Homepage.
I want to put canonical tags on the homepage of a site. cant figure out the version of URL of the homepage should be with a / at the end or without the / ( www.example.com of www.example.com/ ) if I put into the google the URL with / I get the URL without the / in my browser, and it isn't showing as a redirect in my moz extension or other tools. But when I copy the URL from browser and paste elsewhere it pastes with a / I have two questions 1 - in general how does it work with URLs of homepages - I see this happening with lots of sites? 2 - which URL should I set as the canonical version of my homepage? Thanks so much
Technical SEO | | Ruchy0 -
Redirecting Canonical Hostnames
Hi, I want to rewrite all the url pages of "site.com" to "www.site.com". I read the moz redirection article and i concluded that this would be the best approach. RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.seomoz.org [NC]
Technical SEO | | bigrat95
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.seomoz.org/$1 [L,R=301]. But i recieved this error: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@localhost and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. I tried this rewrite too... RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [L,R=301] It worked but it just rewriting my domain** "site.com"** and not all the subs "site.com/fr/example.php" to "www.site.com" Why it doesn't work properly, it seem to be easy... Could it be a hosting problem? Is there another way to do it? <address> </address> <address> </address> <address> </address> <address> </address>0 -
URL redirect question
Hi all, Just wondering whether anybody has experience of CMSs that do a double redirect and what affect that has on rankings. here's the example /page.htm is 301 redirected to /page.html which is 301 redirected to /page As Google has stated that 301 redirects pass on benefits to the new page, would a double redirect do the same? Looking forward to hearing your views.
Technical SEO | | A_Q0 -
Is rel=canonical needed for URLs with Google Analytics query strings?
If a page URL has Google Analytics query strings, does the page need a canonical tag? e.g., something.com/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=mar-2013-nsl I have rel=canonical on all our pages because some of them will be accessed via URLs that have non-Google strings. The strings are only for marketing purposes, not for identifying a specific page to display. e.g., something.com/?source=acme Should I only implement the canonical tag on the pages that might have non-Google marketing strings in the URL?
Technical SEO | | WayneBlankenbeckler0 -
I need to know more clearance on rel=canonical usage than 301 redirects ?
Hi all SEOmozs, As we all know purposes of rel=canonical , I have a query to ask that If we don't have any possibility to use 301 redirects on a domain , can it be really right to use rel=canonical on an old domain to let search engine to treat those all pages should be not priority where the domain we are being promoted in the market to list up instead that. I found this interesting Matt Cutts video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJK5Uloy76g where he has told or cleared the point very nicely, yes we can use it if there is no possibility in your older domain or pages. So here i am asking the same to know more detailed clarity on this so that i can be more confidence on it. I have been seeing issues in my domains where old one domain comes than new domain why with new domain contents, and can it be really very good to bring new domain with **rel=canonical without using 301 redirect :
Technical SEO | | Futura
Old : kanin.com (leaving) New : kangarokanin.com (promoting) Where i might have not used yet the rel=canonical in old domain, will be going to use it soon , after finishing this discussion.** Regards,
Teginder Ravi tcSnN.jpg tcSnN.jpg dGd34.jpg0 -
Canonical tags
How hard is it to put in Canonical tags on a webpage? My web guy didn't do it because he put in redirects in place for all old URLs and all content
Technical SEO | | Boodreaux
(except error pages and advanced searches) should have a unique URL. By not having canonical tags does it lose link juice? Not sure if that question makes sense. 🙂 Poo1 -
Should rel canonical tags include the root domain
It does sound like a silly question but bear with me a little... I recently installed on my Joomla website a module that automatically creates rel canonical tags for pages that contain lists that can be sorted by different criteria: (price, alphabetic order, etc...) I know that a proper canonical tag should look like this: However, the module I'm using creates the following structure Will this work? I mean, will it be "understood" by the bots? To see what the module actually does, you can visit the following link http://www.quipeutlefaire.fr/fr/index.php?sort=price&sort_direction=desc&limit=10&limitstart=0&option=com_auctions&category=240 In the source code you will see that the canonical tag is Which is the original "unsorted" page. Thanks in advance for your help
Technical SEO | | QPLF0 -
Getting rid of duplicate content with rel=canonical
This may sound like a stupid question, however it's important that I get this 100% straight. A new client has nearly 6k duplicate page titles / descriptions. To cut a long story short, this is mostly the same page (or rather a set of pages), however every time Google visits these pages they get a different URL. Hence the astronomical number of duplicate page titles and descriptions. Now the easiest way to fix this looks like canonical linking. However, I want to be absolutely 100% sure that Google will then recognise that there is no duplicate content on the site. Ideally I'd like to 301 but the developers say this isn't possible, so I'm really hoping the canonical will do the job. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | RiceMedia0
