Whats rel canonical
-
I have a warning in SEOmoz saying that I have 150 rel canonical - What the hell that means?
Tks in advance
Pedro Pereira
-
Hi Pedro,
You will find your answer in this article: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps
I hope it helped,
Istvan
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
-
Adding canonical still returns duplicate pages
According to SEOmoz, several of my campaigns show that I have duplicate pages (SEOmoz Errors). Upon reading more about how to resolve the issue, I followed SEOmoz's suggestion to add rel='canonical' <links>to each page. After the next SEOmoz crawl, the number of SEOmoz Errors related to duplicate pages remained the same and the number of SEOmoz notices shot up indicating that it recognized that I added rel='canonical'.</links> I'm still puzzled as to why the SEOmoz errors did not go down with respect to duplicate page errors after I added rel='canonical', especially since SEOmoz noticed that I added them. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks,
Moz Pro | | MOZ2
Scott.0 -
Duplicate pages with canonical links still show as errors
On our CMS, there are duplicate pages such as /news, /news/, /news?page=1, /news/?page=1. From an SEO perspective, I'm not too worried, because I guess Google is pretty capable of sorting this out, but to be on the safe side, I've added canonical links. /news itself has no link, but all the other variants have links to "/news". (And if you go wild and add a bunch of random meaningless parameters, creating /news/?page=1&jim=jam&foo=bar&this=that, we will laugh at you and generate a canonical link back to "/news". We're clever like that.) So far so good. And everything appears to work fine. But SEOMoz is still flagging up errors about duplicate titles and duplicate content. If you click in, you'll see a "Note" on each error, showing that SEOMoz has found the canonical link. So SEOMoz knows the duplication isn't a problem, as we're using canonical links exactly the way they're supposed to be used, and yet is still flagging it as an error. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is it just a bug in SEOMoz?
Moz Pro | | LockyDotser0 -
Canonical link on canonical url
This might seem a bit of an odd one, but we seem to be going around in circles on this when using the on page optimizer tool. We have an ecommerce site (magento) which by default is putting a canonical link in the header on every product page. For example; www.example.com/product1.html has the But when we run the on page optimiser tool, we're losing points on the critical section for not having canonical set correctly. If we remove the tag, we get the tick and the a grade, but then further down the report we lose a tick for not using canonical links. What are we missing here?
Moz Pro | | andyjsi0 -
Roger keeps telling me my canonical pages are duplicates
I've got a site that's brand spanking new that I'm trying to get the error count down to zero on, and I'm basically there except for this odd problem. Roger got into the site like a naughty puppy a bit too early, before I'd put the canonical tags in, so there were a couple thousand 'duplicate content' errors. I put canonicals in (programmatically, so they appear on every page) and waited a week and sure enough 99% of them went away. However, there's about 50 that are still lingering, and I'm not sure why they're being detected as such. It's an ecommerce site, and the duplicates are being detected on the product page, but why these 50? (there's hundreds of other products that aren't being detected). The URLs that are 'duplicates' look like this according to the crawl report: http://www.site.com/Product-1.aspx http://www.site.com/product-1.aspx And so on. Canonicals are in place, and have been for weeks, and as I said there's hundreds of other pages just like this not having this problem, so I'm finding it odd that these ones won't go away. All I can think of is that Roger is somehow caching stuff from previous crawls? According to the crawl report these duplicates were discovered '1 day ago' but that simply doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of messing up one or two pages on my part either; we made this site to be dynamically generated, and all of the SEO stuff (canonical, etc.) is applied to every single page regardless of what's on it. If anyone can give some insight I'd appreciate it!
Moz Pro | | icecarats0 -
'Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical', Critical Factor but appears correct on page
Hi, Trying to get the following page ranked unsuccessfully.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/2/Collections-Quilted-Jackets/c01c02.r16.1 Instead a product page is being ranked, shown below.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/Womens-Quilted-Jacket/Navy/M_HAMPTON/ProductDetail.raction When I run the on page report card it advises that the Rel Canonical tag needs to point to that page, but we have checked and it looks to be doing that already. Has anyone else had an issue like this? Thanks, Martin
Moz Pro | | rockethot0 -
Why do pages with canonical urls show in my report as a "Duplicate Page Title"?
eg: Page One
Moz Pro | | DPSSeomonkey
<title>Page one</title>
No canonical url Page Two
<title>Page one</title> Page two is counted as being a page with a duplicate page title.
Shouldn't it be excluded?0 -
Have I got Rel Canonical or not?
I have 180 warnings of rel=canonical. The exact wording says this: Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. First - I don't know what that means - is that a good thing of bad thing? Second - Because of the above question, Im not sure if I have it or should have or it do have it but shouldn't. Which should I have? What should it look like? How do I fix it? Also, I have notices that say 'issue: 301 redirect' and a line about what a 301 redirect is. Again, do I have it, or not have it, should I have it? Do I have it but shouldn't?
Moz Pro | | borderbound0 -
SEOMOZ Canonical notices using Wordpress
I keeping getting the notice from SEO Moz Crawls relating to Canonical issues. I have tried Yoast SEO, All-in-One SEO and both insert the appropriate canonical code... Can anyone help determine why the crawls report this notice? Check out seoontario.ca\testamonials for an example. Could it be because the site in my SEOMOZ crawl does not have the http:// prefix? I've now installed FV Simpler SEO, a variant of All In Once SEO, but am getting the same canonical code...
Moz Pro | | kbryanton0