Canonical Problem
-
Hello all.
Could someone have a look at my page here www.ashley-wedding-cars.co.uk here and tell me why I have a canonical problem.
-
It looks like you're 301-redirecting you're root site to the "/index.php" version of the page. The problem is that you're linking to the root "/" in the navigation and most of your inbound links are probably to the root. So, you're sending a mixed message about which version is actually canonical. I would stick to the root, personally.
The non-www vs. www issue is also in play, but I think it's a secondary problem.
-
Hi AshJez , I had visited your website. By observing the website I came to conclude that your website has canonical problem. Firstly I want to tell you about what is Canonical problem. Canonicalization is the process of picking the best url when there are several choices, and it usually refers to home pages. In brief it is www vs. non-www.
For more information please refer to this:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-advice-url-canonicalization/
-
I would just like to add that beside above problem, there is also an issue with trailing slashes
http://www.ashley-wedding-cars.co.uk//
http://www.ashley-wedding-cars.co.uk
Resolve to the same thing, You should add redirect from // version to non-slash version
Kind regards
Bojan
-
One problem is that the www and non-www versions of your domain resolve separately. As a best practice, you should pick one to be your primary domain and redirect the other to it. Otherwise, you can end up with duplicate content issues.
-
i can't see a probleem, why do you think you have one?
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
-
Change Google's version of Canonical link
Hi My website has millions of URLs and some of the URLs have duplicate versions. We did not set canonical all these years. Now we wanted to implement it and fix all the technical SEO issues. I wanted to consolidate and redirect all the variations of a URL to the highest pageview version and use that as the canonical because all of these variations have the same content. While doing this, I found in Google search console that Google has already selected another variation of URL as canonical and not the highest pageview version. My questions: I have millions of URLs for which I have to do 301 and set canonical. How can I find all the canonical URLs that Google has autoselected? Search Console has a daily quota of 100 or something. Is it possible to override Google's version of Canonical? Meaning, if I set a variation as Canonical and it is different than what Google has already selected, will it change overtime in Search Console? Should I just do a 301 to highest pageview variation of the URL and not set canonicals at all? This way the canonical that Google auto selected might get redirected to the highest pageview variation of the URL. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SDCMarketing0 -
Canonicals for Splitting up large pagination pages
Hi there, Our dev team are looking at speeding up load times and making pages easier to browse by splitting up our pagination pages to 10 items per page rather than 1000s (exact number to be determined) - sounds like a great idea, but we're little concerned about the canonicals on this one. at the moment we rel canonical (self) and prev and next. so b is rel b, prev a and next c - for each letter continued. Now the url structure will be a1, a(n+), b1, b(n+), c1, c(n+). Should we keep the canonicals to loop through the whole new structure or should we loop each letter within itself? Either b1 rel b1, prev a(n+), next b2 - even though they're not strictly continuing the sequence. Or a1 rel a1, next a2. a2 rel a2, prev a1, next a3 | b1 rel b1, next b2, b2 rel b2, prev b1, next b3 etc. Would love to hear your points of view, hope that all made sense 🙂 I'm leaning towards the first one even though it's not continuing the letter sequence, but because it's looping the alphabetically which is currently working for us already. This is an example of the page we're hoping to split up: https://www.world-airport-codes.com/alphabetical/airport-name/b.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fubra0 -
Canonical URL Multidomain Geolocation Based
Hey there Mozzers, I have a question on the implementation of the canonical tag. I have 3 TLDs that redirect depending the GeoLocation of the person entering the site. www.example.com www.example.co.uk www.example.com.au The content is the same to all of those. Should I choose 1 of them that all the canonicals should point or should all them point to themselves with the canonical tag?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AngelosS0 -
Problems with US site being prioritized in Google UK
Our US version (.com) of our site is appearing above the UK version (co.uk) when using Google UK. I know Google has been giving US more priority in the UK market over the last couple years... What is protocol for fixing/dealing with this? Also, and probably more importantly, how do we handle users who are looking for the UK site right now? Majority of our users are coming from the US so we don't want to cause them any inconvenience, but the UK users need an easy way to get to the UK version quickly. Input is much appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | chrisvogel0 -
Is there any problem if we migrate the entire site to HTTPS except for the blog ?
Hello guys,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | newrankbg
I have a question to those of you, who have migrated from HTTP to HTTPS. We are planning to migrate the site of our customer to Always SSL. In other words, we want to redirect all site pages to HTTPS, except for the blog. Currently, the whole site is using the HTTP protocol (except the checkout page).
After the change, our customer's site should look like this: https://www.domain.com
http://www.domain.com/blog/ The reasons we do not want to migrate the blog to HTTPS are as follows: The blog does not collect any sensitive user information, as opposed to the site. We all know that on-site algorithms like Panda are having sitewide effect. If the Panda doesn’t like part of the blog (if any thin or low quality content), we do not want this to reflect on the rankings of the entire website. Having in mind that for Google, HTTP and HTTPS are two different protocols, a possible blog penalty should not reflect the web site, which will use HTTPS. Point 2 is the reason I am writing here, as this is just a theory. I would like to hear more thoughts from the experts here. Also, I would like to know your opinion, regarding this mixed use of protocols – could this change lead to a negative effect for any of the properties and why? For me, there should be no negative effect at all. The only disadvantage is that we will have to monitor both metrics – the blog and the site separately in webmaster tools. Thank you all and looking forward for your comments.0 -
Duplicate Content / Canonical Conundrum on E-Commerce Website
Hi all, I’m looking for some expert advice on use of canonicals to resolve duplicate content for an e-Commerce site. I’ve used a generic example to explain the problem (I do not really run a candy shop). SCENARIO I run a candy shop website that sells candy dispensers and the candy that goes in them. I sell about 5,000 different models of candy dispensers and 10,000 different types of candy. Much of the candy fits in more than one candy dispenser, and some candy dispensers fit exactly the same types of candy as others. To make things easy for customers who need to fill up their candy dispensers, I provide a “candy finder” tool on my website which takes them through three steps: 1. Pick your candy dispenser brand (e.g. Haribo) 2. Pick your candy dispenser type (e.g. soft candy or hard candy) 3. Pick your candy dispenser model (e.g. S4000-A) RESULT: The customer is then presented with a list of candy products that they can buy. on a URL like this: Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-A All of these steps are presented as HTML pages with followable/indexable links. PROBLEM: There is a duplicate content issue with the results pages. This is because a lot of the candy dispensers fit exactly the same candy (e.g. S4000-A, S4000-B and S4000-C). This means that the content on these pages are the basically same because the same candy products are listed. I’ll call these the “duplicate dispensers” E.g. Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-A Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-B Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-C The page titles/headings change based on the dispenser model, but that’s not enough for the pages to be deemed unique by Moz. I want to drive organic traffic searches for the dispenser model candy keywords, but with duplicate content like this I’m guessing this is holding me back from any of these dispenser pages ranking. SOLUTIONS 1. Write unique content for each of the duplicate dispenser pages: Manufacturers add or discontinue about 500 dispenser models each quarter and I don’t have the resources to keep on top of this content. I would also question the real value of this content to a user when it’s pretty obvious what the products on the page are. 2. Pick one duplicate dispenser to act as a rel=canonical and point all its duplicates at it. This doesn’t work as dispensers get discontinued so I run the risk of randomly losing my canonicals or them changing as models become unavailable. 3. Create a single page with all of the duplicate dispensers on, and canonical all of the individual duplicate pages to that page. e.g. Canonical: candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series Duplicates (which all point to canonical): candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series?model=A candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series?model=B candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series?model=C PROPOSED SOLUTION Option 3. Anyone agree/disagree or have any other thoughts on how to solve this problem? Thanks for reading.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webmethod0 -
Pagination, Canonical Tag & Best Practices
I have an eCommerce site that dynamically creates category pages, which produce canonical tags in the header. For multiple page categories, it adds the page number to the URL. For example, this category has 3 pages.... Because most categories have too many products, I can't follow Googles suggestion of creating a "view all" page. Furthermore since all these pages use the same template, I'm unable to insert a NOINDEX tag in all the pages after the first page. Also, in this scenario, I'm unable to insert the discreet code for Next/Previous, which is also suggested by Google. My only option for maintaining these dynamically generated category pages would be to hardcode the first conical tag in the template, which would then be produced on all subsequent paginated pages. Consequently, every paginated page in this category would have the same canonical tag pointing to the first page. Would this incur the wrath of Google and would I'd be better off leaving the pagination they way it is?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alrockn0 -
Canonical tags required when redirecting?
Hello, My client bought a new domain and he wants it to be the main domain of his company. His current domain though has been online for 10 years and ranks pretty well on a few keywords. I feel it is necessary to redirect the old domain to the new one to take advantage of its ranking and avoid any broken links. The sites are exactly the same. Same sections and same content. Is it necessary to place canonical tags on one of the sites to avoid duplicate content/sites? Any thoughts? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eblan0