Is there a reason to put a canonical to yourself? Interesting case...
-
Hi,
I was looking at BlueNile (biggest diamonds online dealer in the world) since I was wondering how they dealt with similar products and with sold products.
Each diamond that is sold is unique. Once it is sold it is unavailable for sale.
Also, all diamonds are VERY similar so they should also find a way to handle duplication in content.
Look at the following 2 pages:
http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-or-less-ideal-cut-g-color-vs1-clarity_LD02360835
http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-or-less-ideal-cut-g-color-vs1-clarity_LD02366155
The pages are practically identical and in the "view source" I noticed that they add a canonical tag to themselves...
Any thoughts on that?
Thanks
-
Its not the correct use of a canonical, but some people do it so if they get their content copied the canonical will point back to teh original.
Bing does not like it, they say of you do this on every page they will ignore them along with any canonicals that may be of importance
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
-
Do you lose link juice when stripping query strings with canonicals?
It is well known that when page A canonicals to page B, some link juice is lost (similar to a 301). So imagine I have the following pages: Page A: www.mysite.com/main-page which has the tag: <link rel="canonical" href="http: www.mysite.com="" main-page"=""></link rel="canonical" href="http:> Page B: www.mysite.com/main-page/sub-page which is a variation of Page A, so it has a tag I know that links to page B will lose some of their SEO value, as if I was 301ing from page B to page A. Question: What about this link: www.mysite.com/main-page?utm_medium=moz&utm_source=qa&utm_campaign=forum Will it also lose link juice since the query string is being stripped by the canonical tag? In terms of SEO, is this like a redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | YairSpolter0 -
Rel canonical or redirect
Hi, my client has the following links pointing to the home page http://www.weddingrings.com/index.cfm http://www.weddingrings.com In this case would I use rel canonical or redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alexkatalkin0 -
301 and Canonical - is using both counterproductive
A site lost a great deal of traffic in July, which appears to be from an algorithmic penalty, and hasn't recovered yet. It appears several updates were made to their system just before the drop in organic results. One of the issues noticed was that both uppercase and lowercase urls existed. Example urls are: www.domain.com/product123
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ABK717
www.domain.com/Product123 To clean this up, a 301 redirect was implemented a few months ago. Another issue found was that many product related urls had a parameter added to the url for a tracking purpose. To clean this up, the tracking parameters were removed from the system and a canonical tag was implemented as these pages were also found in Google's index. The tag forced a page such as www.domain.com/product123?ref=topnav to be picked up as www.domain.com/product123. So now, there is a 301 to address the upper and lowercase urls and a canonical tag to address the parameters from creating more unnecessary urls. A few questions here: -Is this redunant and can cause confusion to the serps to have both a canonical and 301 redirect on the same page? -Both the 301 and canonical tag were implemented several months ago, yet Google's index is still showing them. Do these have to be manually removed with GWT individually since they are not in a subfolder or directory? Looking forward to your opinions.0 -
Since when did Google get case sensitive?
We are currently ranked #2 locally (NJ) for "IT support", and #27 for "it support". This is a fairly recent development - like today. I know "it" is a stop word, but I have never seen this before. The funny thing is that this is the only "IT" search where this happens. Most of my keywords contain "IT". What's up with this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CsmBill0 -
How to make my infogaphics interesting?
What is it that makes people share and spread infographics? How can I make my infographics interesting and encourage people to re-post it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | harrygardiner0 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0 -
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 -
Google places: 7 weeks and still not verified. Reasons?
I've created Google Places entries for the business' 25 locations in 8 countries. It's been 7 weeks and Google hasn't validated my bulk upload yet. Which of the following would you say might do the trick? URL: I have pointed to http://site.com/country/city for every location. Should I point to http://site? I've created categories in English, but being this about local I guess I should do it in the local language of each country... Should I cancel the bulk upload and do one country per country? My list of countries include Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia so I don't know if manual verification is done by google centrally and that might be a problem. Otherwise the entries are (IMHO) well written, detailed and all. But I'm kind of desperate now because it's 7 weeks already... thanks for you help
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TIBA0