Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Rel=canonical issue

Technical SEO

1520

E-resistible last edited by

Re. http://www.appetise.com.

We have been alerted that we are "not making appropriate use of the rel=canonical tag".

Please could someone just clarify this for us and let us know the recommended remedial action we need to take to rectify the issue?

Many Thanks,

RB
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
RobertFisher @Svetoslav last edited by

Svetoslav

Excellent response.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 1
Svetoslav last edited by

One thing I see and might be the reason is that you have

rel="canonical" href="http://appetise.com/"

but domain redirects to

http://www.appetise.com/.

So you have set the canonical version to appetise.com and then a 301 redirect to www.appetise.com. What I suggest is you do is alter the canonical link element to:

rel="canonical" href="http://www.appetise.com/"
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 5

Got a burning SEO question?

Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.

Start my free trial

Browse Questions

View

From

Sorted by

With category

Explore more categories

Related Questions

Indexing Issue of Dynamic Pages

Hi All, I have a query for which i am struggling to find out the answer. I unable to retrieve URL using "site:" query on Google SERP. However, when i enter the direct URL or with "info:" query then a snippet appears. I am not able to understand why google is not showing URL with "site:" query. Whether the page is indexed or not? Or it's soon going to be deindexed. Secondly, I would like to mention that this is a dynamic URL. The index file which we are using to generate this URL is not available to Google Bot. For instance, There are two different URL's. http://www.abc.com/browse/ --- It's a parent page.
http://www.abc.com/browse/?q=123 --- This is the URL, generated at run time using browse index file. Google unable to crawl index file of browse page as it is unable to run independently until some value will get passed in the parameter and is not indexed by Google. Earlier the dynamic URL's were indexed and was showing up in Google for "site:" query but now it is not showing up. Can anyone help me what is happening here? Please advise. Thanks
Technical SEO | | SameerBhatia

0
Redirect and ranking issue

Hi there - was wondering whether someone might be able to help. For a period of a day and a half, all the traffic to our website's blog articles were mistakenly being redirected to our homepage. A number of these articles ranked in the top 5 in Google worldwide for their targeted keywords, so this was a considerable amount of organic traffic that was instantly being redirected. It was a strange site glitch and our web team rectified the error, but now all these articles have disappeared from Google rankings (not visible anywhere in the first five pages). I'm presuming this must be linked to this redirect issue - we've been advised to wait and see whether Google restores these rankings, but I'm still concerned as to whether this represents a more serious problem? We have re-indexed the pages we are most concerned about, but am not sure whether there is anything else obvious we should think to do. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd be happy to hear them!
Technical SEO | | rwat

0
Webmaster internal links issue

Hi All, In webmaster > Internal links https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/internal-links?hl=en&siteUrl= I get counts as in the image http://imgur.com/9bO5H0f is this logical and ok or should i work on finding why so many links and reduce them? Thanks Martin
Technical SEO | | mtthompsons

0
Rel Canonical question

Hi: I got a report indication 17 rel canonical notices. What does this mean in simple language and how do i go about fixing things?
Technical SEO | | Shaaps

0
Rel=canonical for similar (not exact) content?

Hi all, We have a software product and SEOMOZ tools are currently reporting duplicate content issues in the support section of the website. This is because we keep several versions of our documentation covering the current version and previous 3-4 versions as well. There is a fair amount of overlap in the documentation. When a new version comes out, we simply copy the documentation over, edit it as necessary to address changes and create new pages for the new functionality. This means there is probably an 80% or so overlap from one version to the next. We were previously blocking Google (using robots.txt) from accessing previous versions of the sofware documentation, but this is obviously not ideal from an SEO perspective. We're in the process of linking up all the old versions of the documenation to the newest version so we can use rel=canonical to point to the current version. However, the content isn't all exact duplicates. Will we be penalized by Google because we're using rel=canonical on pages that aren't actually exact duplicates? Thanks, Darren.
Technical SEO | | dgibbons

0
Canonical solution for query strings?

Greetings, The Hotel company where I'm employed uses query strings in it's url's to track customers. The query strings are integrated into our property management system, and they help identify who we need to pay commissions to, so they aren't going anywhere. While I understand that session variables could have been a better solution, I sort of inherited this problem. The issue I'm running into is that my Webmaster tools picks up these query strings as actual url's. So for instance: www.url.com/index.php?P_SOURCE=WBFQ Seems like a duplicate page of my root, and like wise for all my other pages that use our booking widget. So, Is there a canonical solution to this issue? or would 301/302's be the only solution. Also, we may have 10 different but specific query strings to put into our urls. Would the 301/302 approach cause any server issues for say 10 pages? So 10 pages x 10 access codes = a lot of redirects. Thanks in advance, Cyril
Technical SEO | | Nola504

0
If you only want your home page to rank, can you use rel="canonical" on all your other pages?

If you have a lot of pages with 1 or 2 inbound links, what would be the effect of using rel="canonical" to point all those pages to the home page? Would it boost the rankings of the home page? As I understand it, your long-tail keyword traffic would start landing on the home page instead of finding what they were looking for. That would be bad, but might be worth it.
Technical SEO | | watchcases

0
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!
Technical SEO | | AmsiveDigital

0