Canonical Tag - Question
-
Hey,
I will give a thumbs up and best answer to whoever answers my question correctly.
The Canonical Tag is supposed to solve Duplication which is fine.
My questions are:
-
Does the Canonical Tag make the PR / Link Juice flow differently? If I have john.long.com/home and john.long.com but put a Canonical Tag on john.long.com/home reading john.long.com then what does this do? Does it flow the Link Equity back to john.long.com?
-
Can you use the Canonical Tag to change PR flow in any means? If I had john.long.com/washing-machines and john.long.com/kids-toys...
If I put a Canonical Tag on john.long.com/kids-toys reading john.long.com/washing-machines then would the PR from /kids-toys flow to /washing-machines or would Google just ignore this? (The pages are completely different in this example and content is completely different).
Thank you.
-
-
Yannick is correct.
Bing for example will lose trust in your site and start to ignore your tags if you are not honest.
Bing has also stated that a canonical is much like a 301, only it leaves the useer on the page, it does not redirect. So yes it will leak a bit of link juice.
Read the link yannick supplied, it explains it all.
-
"Would Google just ignore these"
The canonical tag is merely a reference for Google, and any other crawlers that respect this tag, and in no way does Google have to honour it. I'm quite certain if your canonical tag reference was different than the actual URL in question over a large chunk of your site, Google might start to think something is up.
The canonical tag works like a 301 header redirect. So, it will pass some juice, but not 100% of the PR juice.
I could go on more, but there are several answers below that have already pointed out some great points.
-
To answer this questions needed to understand why google have implement "canonical" tag.
Before, to determine is content duplicated or not. Google bot downloaded page content and via complex algorithm compare it with other page in index. As i think there are special bot running through indexed pages database and searching duplicates (that's why copy-paste sites take ban not right after indexation but in some time after).
Tag "Canonical" make this task more easier, Google bot don't need to download page with duplicate content, just need to check section, and may be hash or something like "hashsumm" for . So there are no necessity to download and store same data few times(delete stored data is hard for high-load data centers). It's more effective and fast way to crawl large data sets like web. Also link and url related data, i think, should be added to primary page data set.
I've made a test on this, Google download much less data if the page has rel="canonical" to other page, compare to primary page.
So according this answers for your questions are:
1. Link just flow as usual's, all link data for duplicated pages merge with data for primary page. So PR may slightly decrease in some cases,by the way if you have links from same pages to both primary and duplicated pages. But impact is not critical, almost similar to 301.
2. No, because Google bot check not only canonical. About this i have one more point, Google is statistical SE, and rate pages on topics, so in you case even if canonical will added to pages, it will not help you rank better for both terms.
-
1. I think a canonical loses a similar amount of link juice as a 301 redirect would, so 100% of the juice would not flow back to john.long.com
2. If Google sees the canonical link is different to the content of the page it is on, Google will ignore it - Matt Cutts has said as much.
Check this out: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/rel-canonical-html-head/
-
-
Thanks for your reply Yannick. It's much appreciated.
I don't find you very convincing though.
I'll give you a thumbs up but I need somebody else to answer please.
-
In my opinion, if you are pointing to a page as a canonical and the page you are pointing to is not a copy of the page the tag is on, you'll be sending strange signals to SE's and they will ignore it. Worst case they will penalize you. (But I dont think they do that)
-
But my question is and what I'm trying to understand is that - IF it does flow Link Equity like you said it does, then what is to stop somebody putting Canonical Tags into Internal Pages pointing back to their Homepage to channel Link Equity from Internal Pages back to their Homepage for example????? Would Google just ignore these or penalise you because will Google know that the content isn't the same?
-
1. In my understanding: it flows link equity back to john.long.com if it is a copy of /home.
2. It's not as simple as that. Try not to compare a canonical to a 301. rel canonical tells SE's that there is a copy of the page somewhere else. So putting a rel canonical on the kids toys to the washing machines will do nothing for your rankings. They are not copies of eachother.
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
-
Does we need to add a canonical tag with the mobile url in each desktop version as a result of mobile first index?
Hi, Does we need to add a canonical tag with the mobile url in each desktop version as a result of mobile first index? Thanks Roy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kadut0 -
Why isn't the canonical tag on my client's Magento site working?
The reason for this mights be obvious to the right observer, but somehow I'm not able to spot the reason why. The situation:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo
I'm doing an SEO-audit for a client. When I'm checking if the rel=canonical tag is in place correctly, it seems like it: view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15) (line nr 15) Anyone seing something wrong with this canonical? When I perform a site:http://quickplay.no/ search, I find that there's many url's indexed that ought to have been picked up by the canonical-tag: (see picture) ..this for example view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15 I really can't see why this page is getting indexed, when the canonical-tag is in place. Anybody who can? Sincerely 🙂 GMdWg0K0 -
Are ALL duplicate title tags bad??
We’ve had some success recently by reducing the number of duplicate title tags on our website. We have managed to fix all the simple cases but there are a number of stubborn examples that we don’t know how to fix. A lot of the duplicate tags come from the website’s forums. Many questions have been asked multiple times over the years where the user has phrased the question in the same way. This has led to many cases where different forums posts have the same title tag. For example, there are six title tags with the words ‘’need help”! These are being highlighted as duplicates and currently we have several thousand of these. Would this be a problem? I’d be tempted to say that we should leave them as they don’t seem unnatural to me. One solution other solution we are considering is to append the forum name to the question to any post after the original, falling back to appending the date if that doesn’t distinguish it. Do people think that this is a good solution to implement or would it be better to leave these duplicate title tags as they are? Any help would be appreciated 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RG_SEO0 -
Are pages with a canonical tag indexed?
Hello here, here are my questions for you related to the canonical tag: 1. If I put online a new webpage with a canonical tag pointing to a different page, will this new page be indexed by Google and will I be able to find it in the index? 2. If instead I apply the canonical tag to a page already in the index, will this page be removed from the index? Thank you in advance for any insights! Fabrizio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Followup question to rand(om) question: Would two different versions (mobile/desktop) on the same URL work well from an SEO perspective and provide a better overall end-user experience?
We read today's rand(om) question on responsive design. This is a topic we have been thinking about and ultimately landing on a different solution. Our opinion is the best user experience is two version (desktop and mobile) that live on one URL. For example, a non-mobile visitor that visits http://www.tripadvisor.com/ will see the desktop (non-responsive) version. However, if a mobile visitor (i.e. iOS) visits the same URL they will see a mobile version of the site, but it is still on the same URL There is not a separate subdomain or URL - instead the page dynamically changes based on the end user's user agent. It looks like they are accomplishing this by using javascript to change the physical layout of the page to match the user's device. This is what we are considering doing for our site. It seems this would simultaneously solve the problems mentioned in the rand(om) question and provide an even better user experience. By using this method, we can create a truly mobile version of the website that is similar to an app. Unfortunately, mobile versions and desktop users have very different expectations and behaviors while interacting with a webpage. I'm interested to hear the negative side of developing two versions of the site and using javascript to serve the "right" version on the same URL. Thanks for your time!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davidangotti0 -
Canonical Meta Tag Best Practices
I've noticed that some website owners use canonical tags even when there may be no duplicate issues.For examplewww.examplesite.com has a canonical tag.......rel="canonical" href="http://www.examplesite.com/" />www.examplesite.com/bluewidget has a canonical tag.......rel="canonical" href="http://www.examplesite.com/bluewidget/" />Is this recommended or helpful to do this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webestate0 -
Question | Blogger, Godaddy, HostGator
If I buy a new domain and do forwarding with masking to my blogger post URL what would happen to the backlinks that were pointing to my blog post exactly? Will the power link back to this new domain or will it stay there? I have a blogger account, a domain from godaddy, and hosting? People are telling me that forwarding with masking is bad for <acronym title="Search Engine Optimization">SEO</acronym> so I should set blogger with godaddy or something like that I don't know. I need a hosting though in order to do that and free ones don't offer changes to the CNAME records? so I got hostgator. I am up to the part where I need to set the records in the CNAME for hostgator but every time I try to list ghs.google as the whatever, it won't work! It keeps telling me the record is already there when this is my FIRST time using this! How can it be there when I haven't even touched it? Please help me This is the tutorial im using : http://support.google.com/blogger/bi...381&page=ts.cs I get stuck here: Find the control panel on your domain registrar’s website, and locate your DNS (Domain Name System) settings. In order to link your blog to your custom domain, follow the instructions below to enter your "CNAME" and "A-records."
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 678648631264
CNAME
Where it says Name, simply enter "www" and list ghs.google.com as the Host Name. See our detailed instructions on providing CNAMEs for various registrars. If yours isn't listed, or if you run into other difficulties, contact your registrar directly and they can help you out.
A-records (optional)
The following action links your naked domain (example.com) to your actual site (www.example.com). If you skip this step, visitors who leave off the "www" will see an error page.
Enter your domain name in the format example.com, and list the I.P. addresses shown below in the "A" section. You'll need to create four separate A-records which point to four different Google IPs. 216.239.32.21
216.239.34.21
216.239.36.21
216.239.38.21 Could I just leave my forwarding with masking on with my domain + blogger to make everything easier or what? And, is there any benefit in SEO if I don't have an EMD but it's something like this www.General.com/Keyword 1 www.General.com/Keyword 2/Posts/etc0 -
Canonical, 301 or code a workaround?
Hi, Recently I've been trying to tackle an issue on one of my websites. I have a site with around 400 products and 550 pages total. I've been pruning some weaker pages and pages with shallow content, and it's been working really well. My current issue is this: There are about 20 store brands of 6 products on my site that each have their own page. They are identical products just re-branded. Writing content for each of these pages has been difficult, as it's a fairly dry product too. So I have around 120 pages of dry content that is unique but not much different from one another. I want to consolidate but I am not sure how yet. Here is what I am thinking: 1. 301 - I pick one product page as the master, 301 all the other duplicate products to it and then make one page of great content that encompasses all of them. If the 301 juice gets diluted over time I might miss out on some long tails, but I could also gain a lot more from a great content page with 500+ words of really good content as opposed to pages with 150-250 words of just so so content. 2. Canonical - Similar to above. I pick a master page and canonical the other pages to it. Then I could use the great content on all the pages, and still have pages for the specific products. The pages might not show up in search engines but would still be searchable on my site. 3. Coded solution - In my CMS I could always make a workaround where the products still appear on the brands page (just their name with a link to the product page) but all the links direct to a master page. I realize all the solutions are fairly similar, although I am not sure which is ideal. Option 3 is the most expensive/time consuming but it would drop my page total down to around 450 pages. For a while now (dating back to before Panda) I've been trying to get rid of the low quality and outdated product pages so I could focus on the more popular and active pages. Dropping my page total would also help in the SEO efforts as the sheer volume of pages that need links right now is high, and obviously the less pages I have the more time I can spend on each page (content and link building). So what do you think? Should I do any of the 3, a combination of the 3 or something different? Cheers, Vinnie
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vforvinnie0