Canonical to the page itself?
-
Hello,
I'd like to know what happens when you use canonical to the same page itself, like:
Page "example.com"
rel canonical="example.com"
Does that impact in something? Bad or good?
See ya!
-
We're re-evaluating the canonical notice, as it's confusing to a lot of people. Our intent wasn't necessarily to say that the tag is wrong, but more of a "heads up" (in case there are potential problems). Unfortunately, there's no good way to automatically detect what page a canonical should point to, so we tend to have to use general warnings.
-
According to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8eQgx-njk4 Matt says there is no penalization of any kind with a canonical tag referencing to the page itself.
However, I have noticed that SEOMoz doesn't like it. It keeps reporting thousands of canonicals in the "Notices" report as if there was something I should do about it.
-
Keep in mind that a lot of my organic SEO client work is helping people deal with massive-scale duplicate content problems (including Panda issues), so I'm probably a bit more hyper-sensitive than your average person
-
For some people, a "landing page" could have URL variants, like tracking parameters for affiliates. So, it's hard to talk about them in a vacuum. If you're talking about a regular main-nav page like "About Us", you'd almost never need a canonical tag.
-
For e-commerce I think is very important, even more for the big ones, that have a lot of filters of princing or color that are in fact other URLs. There we need to input a canonical.
But for landing pages, N1 deep, that seems like a hotsite, when the company just sells one online service, I can't imagine what kind of benefits using "self canonical" in a page like this.
Sorry for making this longer, I should've chosen Discussion up there!
Answer when you can! =] -
I'd say it's a matter of risk. If you're on an e-commerce site, for sample, where the risk of a page having URL-based duplicates is high, a pre-emptive canonical can make sense. In a perfect world, I agree with Alan - it's better not to need them. I've just rarely seen that perfect world on large sites.
"Landing pages" is a loaded term, though, because landing pages can often have tracking parameters (such as affiliate IDs) and other URL modifications. Some landing pages are a perfect storm of dupe content. So, it's really situational.
-
Thanks for the attention Peter.
I understand your point about the Homepage.
But what about other pages? Landing pages with canonical to it self?
It seems to me meaningless, or worse, lowering trust, like Bing seems to do, in the link Alan wrote above.
-
I think it's good for some pages, especially the home-page, because you can naturally have so many variants ("www" vs. non-www, for example). It's a lot easier to pre-emptively canonicalize them than 301-redirect every URL variant that might pop up over time.
While Alan's concerns are technically correct, I've never seen evidence that either Google or Bing actually devalue a page for a self-referencing canonical. For Google, the risks of duplicates are much worse than the risk of an unnecessary canonical tag, IMO. For Bing, I don't really have good data either way. More and more people use canonical proactively, so I suspect Bing doesn't take action.
I don't generally use it site-wide, unless needed, but I almost always recommend a canonical on the home-page, at least for now. Technical SEO is always changing.
-
yes you are correct,
The only good thing about doing it is stopping scrapers, if they dont take them out, but i dont think this is much of a advanatge as I believ if you do get scraped it is likely that they will remove you canonical, if they dont, I believe that SE's will see that they have a site full of duplicate content and give the credit to you anyhow. I think that SE's get this correct most of the time.
And if you are using canonicals for a valid reason, you dont want Bing to ingnore them because you have misused them elsewhere. Even for 2%
-
Thanks Alan,
So, what seems is that "self page canonical" has no clear or even any good points for taking the risk of doing it?
I'm more concerned about Google, once I'm from Brazil, and Google rules 98% of searches...
-
When some one scrapes your site they take the canonical with them, pointing back to the original, so you still get credit. that is if they dont take it out.
But this is a miss use of a canonical, a canonical should not point back to the same page.
Bing for one has said that they will lose trust in your site if you do this, they will start to not trust all your canonicals, those that are there for a good reason.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/webmaster/archive/2011/10/06/managing-redirects-301s-302s-and-canonicals.aspxGoogle have said that they can handle it.
But a canonical does not pass all the link juice, so a canonical to itself, does it leak link juice? google says that can handle it, but that does not mean there is not a leak in link juice.
I for one dont do it, bing has made it clear they dont like, and even though google have said they can handle it, it does not mean there is no down side.
-
Thanks Stephen!
Can your talk more about the scrape? It was not too clear for me.
Sorry =]
-
Nothing bad and turns good when people scrape your content (it gets scraped with the canonical to your page) or you make a mistake with your information architecture (as things tend to point to the correct place)
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
-
Building a new page: What on-page SEO would you build in?
Hi all, Building a new page for a fairly competitive keyword. Need to make sure the on-page SEO is pretty top notch, because link building (including internal links) will be difficult. I've optimised the meta description, the alt tags and image names, and included the keyword in the Title Tags. Not a great deal I can do with regards to optimising for mobile or considering migrating to the AMP project because this is handled externally. What else would you suggest? Cheers in advance, Rhys
On-Page Optimization | | SwanseaMedicine1 -
Why are http and https pages showing different domain/page authorities?
My website www.aquatell.com was recently moved to the Shopify platform. We chose to use the http domain, because we didn't want to change too much, too quickly by moving to https. Only our shopping cart is using https protocol. We noticed however, that https versions of our non-cart pages were being indexed, so we created canonical tags to point the https version of a page to the http version. What's got me puzzled though, is when I use open site explorer to look at domain/page authority values, I get different scores for the http vs. https version. And the https version is always better. Example: http://www.aquatell.com DA = 21 and https://www.aquatell.com DA = 27. Can somebody please help me make sense of this? Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | Aquatell1 -
123 keywords for a page
Hey mOz fans , I have a site that has 130 keywords. can ı target this amount just incoperate them as Ryan discussed Before.
On-Page Optimization | | atakala0 -
Question About On Page Grades
New to the whole SEO game in some aspects and wanted to know about on page grades. Some of the pages I got ranks of F for are actually in the top 10 in Google. Could anyone help me to explain way these pages/tags are F's with those rankings?
On-Page Optimization | | BlackEnterprise0 -
Duplicate Page Content for Product Pages
Hello, We have one website which URL is http://www.bannerbuzz.com & we have many product pages which having duplicate page content issue in SEOMOZ which are below. http://www.bannerbuzz.com/backlit-banners-1.html
On-Page Optimization | | CommercePundit
http://www.bannerbuzz.com/backlit-banners-10.html
http://www.bannerbuzz.com/backlit-banners-11.html
http://www.bannerbuzz.com/backlit-banners-12.html
http://www.bannerbuzz.com/backlit-banners-13.html We haven't any content on these pages, still getting duplicate page content errors for all pages in SEOMOZ. Please help me how can i fix this issue. Thanks,0 -
Rel Canonical Warning on most pages
I have an e-commerce website and have recently started using SEO moz. candygalaxy.com is the site. I have over 2000 pages that i am receiving the Rel Canonical notice for, which is essentially everyone of my pages. I'm a little bit confused as to what this means, good or bad... I also have over 1800 pages with to many links. I think this is being caused by the fact that my drop down menus' are quite extensive and begin counted on every page. Any tips on how to make those menu's links not count? So that i can reduce the total number of links per page? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Jonathan_Murrell0 -
Tilde + On-page Optimization
I'm analyzing my Hispanic site www.escolares.net, and I noticed that on-page optimization rank with an F pages using a tilde in target keywords. Does anybody know if SeoMoz software can completely understand in their analysis special characters as tildes? Cristian Majluf
On-Page Optimization | | motorpod1 -
Optimization of home page
Hi there I have an issue which, despite searching hard, I simply cannot find the right solution for. We have an index page that used to rank pretty well for a main industry keyword. However following a revamp of the site last year the kw slipped and no longer brings in decent traffic levels. The problem seems to be that the old static site had a sprinkling of variable anchor text links that brought value to the home page. Instead of the main anchor being "home" we would revert to "main keyword" and variations across the site sometimes in t he content but mainly on the nav bars. However the new CMS design structure restricts us considerably with anchor distribution and so instead we opted for the site logo on the masthead to have an ALT tag for "main keyword" but so as not to game google too much we added .."home" to the tag. Probably pointless but we figured it could do no harm. This ALT text is site wide Problem now is that we have lost the spread of internal nav bar anchors and variety etc. We have slipped in the serps for "main keyword" and I cant help thinking we are not maximising the anchors as we should. So what Im coming to is this.... How can we tell if Google is picking up the ALT tage anchor as the main anchor to rank the site at the expense of all internal text anchors. Despite retaining lots of embedded anchors - according to the Moz metrics these are not being picked up because OSE suggests the ALT tag anchor is taking precedence. The serps probably support this view as well. Should we: a) Vary the masthead ALT if there is no way of avoiding this being the most important link / anchor on the page b) Remove the ALT anchor and instead opt for content links high on the page (we do have nav bar links saying "Home" site wide as well which may overrid the embedded links?) c) Leave the ALT alone and still push for content anchors as described in b) What is the best way to handle this..? Best wishes and thanks Morch
On-Page Optimization | | Morch0