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

Broken canonical link errors

Hello, Several tools I'm using are returning errors due to "broken canonical links". However, I'm not too sure why is that. Eg.
Page URL: domain.com/page.html?xxxx
Canonical link URL: domain.com/page.html
Returns an error. Any idea why? Am I doing it wrong? Thanks,
G
Technical SEO | | GhillC

1
how to set rel canonical on wordpress.com sites

I know how to do this with a wordpress.org site but I have a client that does not want to switch and without a plugin I am lost. any help would be greatly appreciated. Jeremy Wood
Technical SEO | | SOtBOrlando

0
Canonical usage and duplicate content

Hi We have a lot of pages about areas like ie. "Mallorca" (domain.com/Spain/Mallorca), with tabbed pages like "excursion" (domain.com/spain/Mallorca/excursions) and "car rental" (domain.com/Spain/Mallorca/car-rental) etc. The text on ie the "car rental"-page is very similar on Mallorca and Rhodos, and seomoz marks these as duplicate content. This happens on "car rental", "map", "weather" etc. which not have a lot of text but images and google maps inserted. Could i use rel=nex/prev/canonical to gather the information from the tabbed pages? That could show google that the Rhodos-map page is related to Rhodos and not Mallorca. Is that all wrong or/and is there a better way to do this? Thanks, Alsvik
Technical SEO | | alsvik

0
Rel=cannonical + 301 redirect

Hi All I am currently working on a DotNetNuke site. I have enabled friendly URL's which have changed the url structure from the default setting of TabId=x to whatever the page name is set as. I will use the following page as an example - www.notarealdomain./graphicdesign.aspx Now I would like to know if it would be worth my time to change this to "/graphic-design.aspx through the use of a 301 redirect and/or a rel=can. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | masterpete

0
Will rel=canonical cause a page to be indexed?

Say I have 2 pages with duplicate content: One of them is: http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage This page is the one I want to be indexed on google (domain rank already built, etc.) http://www.originalpage.com is more of an ease of use domain, primarily for printed material. If both of these sites are identical, will rel=canonical pointing to "http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage" cause it to be indexed? I do not plan on having any links on my site going to "http://www.originalsite.com/originalpage", they would instead go to "http://www.originalpage.com".
Technical SEO | | jgower

0
Canonical URLs and screen scraping

So a little question here. I was looking into a module to help implement canonical URLs on a certain CMS and I came a cross a snarky comment about relative vs. absolute URLs being used. This person was insistent that relative URLs are fine and absolute URLs are only for people who don't know what they are doing. My question is, if using relative URLs, doesn't it make it easier to have your content scraped? After all, if you do get your content scraped at least it would point back to your site if using absolute URLs, right? Am I missing something or is my thinking OK on this? Any feedback is much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | friendlymachine

0
Rel = author display issue

I want to enter some products as blog posts. I don't want users to see the post info, but do want SE's to see rel="author". I can do this by setting display to "none" in a CSS style. The post info does not appear in the browser but is still in the page source. Will search engines be able to see the post info?
Technical SEO | | waynekolenchuk

0
Duplicate Content Issue

Hello, We have many pages in our crawler report that are showing duplicate content. However, the content is not duplicateon the pages. It is somewhat close, but different. I am not sure how to fix the problem so it leaves our report. Here is an example. It is showing these as duplicate content to each other. www.soccerstop.com/c-119-womens.aspx www.soccerstop.com/c-120-youth.aspx www.soccerstop.com/c-124-adult.aspx Any help you could provide would be most appreciated. I am going through our crawler report and resolving issues, and this seems to be big one for us with lots in the report, but not sure what to do about it. Thanks
James
Technical SEO | | SoccerStop

0