REL = cannonical and web app
-
I started a web app campaign for a site that I recently finished. It had no errors or warnings, but issued rel=cannonical notices for every page on the site.
What does this mean?
-
Yessir. SEOmoz is just trying to have your back - there's no need for concern whatsoever.
-
I'm using Wordpress, which insets the rel=cannonical tag on every page, and they are pointed correctly, so I I'm OK, right?
-
Items under the "Notices" section are just that - notices. If a canonical tag points to a URL other than the page it is on, the notice comes up. This is because engines will not count this page as the reference resource, meaning it won't have the opportunity to rank - which could be a terrible situation if you're using the tag incorrectly. SEOmoz includes the notice just to make sure you're targeting the right page.
You can learn more about canonicalization and the rel="canonical" tag at the below resources:
- Canonicalization Best Practices
- Canonical URL Tag - The Most Important Advancement In SEO Practices Since Sitemaps
- Complete Guide to Rel Canonical - How To and Why (Not)
- 301 Redirect or Rel=Canonical - Which One Should You Use?
Additionally, you can find information about other crawl diagnostics in the SEOmoz Help Forums.
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 or 301 to pass on page authority/juice
I have a large body of product support documentation and there are similar pages for each of versions of the product, with minor changes as the product changes. The two oldest versions of this documentation get the best ranking and are powering Google snippets--however, this content is out of date. The team responsible for the support documentation wants current pages to rank higher. I suggested 301 redirects but they want to maintain the old page content for clients still using the older version of the product. Is there a way to move a page's power to a more updated version of the page, but without wiping out the old content? Considering recommending canonical tags, but I'm not sure this will get me all the way there either as there are some differences between pages, especially as the product has changed over time. Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | rachelholdgrafer0 -
Rel="canonical" in hyperlink
Inside my website, I use the rel = "canonical" but I do not use it in the but in a hyperlink. Now it is not clear to me if that goes well. See namely different stories about the Internet. My example below link: Bruiloft
Technical SEO | | NECAnGeL0 -
All other things equal, do server rendered websites rank higher than JavaScript web apps that follow the AJAX Crawling Spec?
I instinctively feel like server rendered websites should rank higher since Google doesn't truly know that the content its getting from an AJAX site is what the user is seeing and Google isn't exactly sure of the page load time (and thus user experience). I can't find any evidence that would prove this, however. A website like Monocle.io uses pushstate, loads fast, has good page titles, etc., but it is a JavaScript single page application. Does it make any difference?
Technical SEO | | jeffwhelpley0 -
To avoid errors in our Moz crawl, we removed subdomains from our host. (First we tried 301 redirects, also listed as errors.) Now we have backlinks all over the web that are broken. How bad is this, from a pagerank standpoint?
Our MOZ crawl kept telling us we had duplicate page content even though our subdomains were redirected to our main site. (Pages from Wineracks.vigilantinc.com were 301 redirected to vigilantinc.com/wineracks.) Now, to solve that problem, we have removed the wineracks.vigilantinc.com subdomain. The error report is better, but now we have broken backlinks - thousands of them. Is this hurting us worse than the duplicate content problem?
Technical SEO | | KristyFord0 -
Moving content from CMS pages to a blog - 301 or rel canonical?
Our site has some useful information buried in out-of-the-way CMS pages, and I feel like this content is more suited to our blog. What's my best method here? 1. Move the content to a blog post, delete the original page, and 301. 2. Move the content to a blog post, leave the original page up, and rel canonical. 3. Rewrite the content so it's not a duplicate, keep original page up, and post rewritten content on the blog. 4. Something else. Some of this content has inbound links and some does not. Quite a bit of it gets long-tail traffic already. It just looks kludgy because it's on pages that really aren't designed for articles. It would look much nicer and be much more readable/shareable/linkable on the blog.
Technical SEO | | CMC-SD0 -
How to use rel canonical?
Hi, I am having some questions about this and I think you can help me on this. Here I have the example of my problem: pagination: Suppose that I have a new with 2 pages http://www.espectador.com/noticias/208907/fernando-pereira-encuesta-de-cifra-prendio-una-lucecita-amarilla-en-el-pit-cnt you can access the first page by different ways: www.espectador.com/1v4_contenido.php?m=&id=250419&ipag=1 http://www.espectador.com/1v4_contenido.php?m=&id=250419 http://www.espectador.com/noticias/250419/alvaro-vega-fa-creo-que-cosmo-fue-usada-por-bqb-para-evitar-una-subasta-a-la-baja-y-asi-quedar-con-las-manos-libres Same meta descr, same body with different URLs. Can I use rel canonical in the file 1v4_contenido.php that point to the friendly url? <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[http://www.espectador.com/noticias/250419/alvaro-vega-fa-creo-que-cosmo-fue-usada-por-bqb-para-evitar-una-subasta-a-la-baja-y-asi-quedar-con-las-manos-libres](view-source:http://www.espectador.com/noticias/250419/alvaro-vega-fa-quotcreo-que-cosmo-fue-usada-por-bqb-para-evitar-una-subasta-a-la-bajaquot-y-asi-quotquedar-con-las-manos-libresquot)"/> do I have a loop here? The rel canonical can goes in the page 1? Thanks
Technical SEO | | informatica8100 -
Rel = prev next AND canonical?
I have product category pages that correctly have the prev next but the moz crawl is giving me duplicate content errors. I would not think I also need to have canonical - but do I ?
Technical SEO | | JohnBerger0 -
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