Implementing rel=canonical in a CMS
-
Hi Guys,
We have an issue with duplicate content caused by dynamic URLs, so want to implement rel=canonical. However this isn't easy due to the way out CMS works.
These were pulled from SEOMoz scan:
http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463
http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463?page=1&perpage=10&sales_group=NULL&filter_colour=&filter_size=&sortby=RELEV&inStock=NO&resfilter=
and are obviously the same page. As far as I can see I have two options.1. To implement the canonical meta tag only on page 1.
2. To implement the canonical tag so that I add ?page=X
so
http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463
would be
http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463?page=1Will this work?
Thanks
Rob
-
Ideally, you'd fix the crawl path, but that may be tricky (unless they've patched the CMS). You could add the canonical to just the "page=1" version, but admittedly that's a bit code-intensive.
An alternate idea - that is fairly Google-friendly. You could add a "View All" version and then point the canonical on all search pages to that version. Especially since all is only 2 pages, that could work well in your case and you wouldn't have to worry about all the variants or search results not getting crawled.
-
Still I would advice to talk to Sanderson first, because maybe they have met the same issue on several clients.And have developed something to resolve it.
Webmaster tools can be helpful too just as Bede said.
-
Hi Istvan,
Thanks for your comments. I have contacted Sanderson but as @Bede suggests, I might try and do this in webmaster tools
-
Hi Bede,
I did think about that a while back, the issue is that we are an ecommerce site, so I don't want to run the risk of excluding page 2,3,4 etc from being crawled. However, I think you might be right - this may have to be the way forward. Currently we have 3165 products and 9495 pages of duplicate content, so it is something I need to get fixed.
Thanks, Rob
-
Just throwing this out there, but, could rel=canonical be augmented or assisted in this case by URL parameters in webmaster tools?
https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687
-
@Nicolai: maybe this could be a solution: http://drupal.org/project/nodewords
@Rob: I am searching for a solution. Did you try contacting http://www.sanderson.com regarding this issue?
-
Hi Istvan,
Thank you very much - take your time It's deeply appreciated.
-
Hi Nicolai,
More than possible in the evening I will have more time to check things. I will look for both Drupal and Elucid solutions.
Gr.,
Istvan
-
Hi Rob / Istvan,
@ Rob, I hope you don't mind that I "steal" your thread, that's not my intention. I have what seems to be the exact same problem as you (as described in this threat), and I can't seem to find a solution for it.
@Istvan - my CMS is Drupal, and I guess I have the exact same problem as Rob(?).
Again guys: Apologies for staling this thread, I hope it's ok. I just saw it and was very happy to find not only the question written by Rob, but also someone who seems to have an idea of what to do about it.
Thanks in advance, and good day both of you.
Nicolai
-
Hi Rob,
I will check and get back to you in a few hours.
Hopefully we'll find something for you
Gr.,
Istvan
-
Hi Istvan,
It is a system called Elucid from Sanderson. It is basically a multi-channel platform. The problem content all run off the same template, which is the issue.
Thanks
-
Hi Rob,
What CMS are you using? Maybe we could link a few very good plugins which will help you out with this situation.
Gr.,
Istvan
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
-
Should you 301, 302, or rel=canonical private pages?
What should you do with private 'logged in' pages from a seo perspective? They're not visible to crawlers and shouldn't be indexed, so what is best practice? Believe it or not, we have found quite a few back links to private pages and want to get the ranking benefit from them without them being indexed. Eg: http://twiends.com/settings (Only logged in user can see the page) 302 them: We can redirect users/crawlers temporarily, but I believe this is not ideal from a seo perspective? Do we lose the link juice to this page? 301 them: We can do a permanent redirect with a short cache time. We preserve most link juice now, but we probably mess up the users browser. Users trying to reach a private page while logged out may have issues reaching it after logged in. **Serve another page with rel=canonical tag: **We could serve back the home page without changing the URL. We use a canonical tag to tell the crawlers that it's a duplicate of the home page. We keep most of the link juice, and the browser is unaffected. Yes, a user might share that different URL now, but its unlikely. We've been doing 302's up until now, now we're testing the third option. How do others solve this problem? Is there a problem with it? Any advice appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
Rel="canonical" at the same page
Hello Everyone!! We have a Joomla Site and in the template we have a php function that create the **link rel="canonical" **and in the href inserts the same page url. For example, if the we do a search and the url have some cookies. That Url is gonna be the **rel="canonical" **for that page. Is it working correctly? We need an advice to to set it up correctly! Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | mycostaricalink0 -
Ref = Canonical
Does it make sense to use the Canonical statement on pages on your web site that already have the correct URL. Or, should I ask, "Does it do any harm?"
On-Page Optimization | | JustInsulation0 -
How to use canonical with mobile site to main site
I am pretty sure that the mobile version of the main site needs to be the same canonical link from what I understand. I am trying to find good docuementation that supports this. Even better if its from Google or Matt Cutts. I have a main domain like http://www.mydomain.com the mobile version of this is http://www.mydomain.com/m/ Should my canonical be rel="canonical" href="http://www.mydomain.com"/> for both these pages?
On-Page Optimization | | cbielich0 -
Rel=author WP Plugin
Anyone find a WP plugin they like for rel=author and rel=publisher markup? I'd love to find one that gives and about the author at the end of a blog, and tags the G+ page on the end for rich snippets. Does that exist?? 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | AESEO0 -
Help with Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Whenever i enable Canonical URL through the 3DCart Control panel I get this Critical Factor error when running the on page report card: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://rcnitroshop.com/Nitro-Monster-Truck"</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.</dd> </dl> Now if I disable Canonical URL then run the on page report card again the critical error goes away but I get this Optional Factor error instead: Canonical URL Tag Usage Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>0</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.</dd> </dl> So basically I disabled it because obviously a Critical error is much worse then an optional error. Is there a way I can get rid of both errors?
On-Page Optimization | | bilsonx0 -
Is rel=canonical used only for duplicate content
Can the rel-canonical be used to tell the search engines which page is "preferred" when there are similar pages? For instance, I have an internal page that Google is showing on the first page of the SERPs that I would prefer the home page be ranked for. Both the home and internal page have been optimized for the same keyword. What is interesting is that the internal page has very few backlinks compared to the home page but Google seems to favor it since the keyword is in the URL. I am afraid a 301 will drop us from the first page of the SERPs.
On-Page Optimization | | surveygizmo0 -
Canonical home page
I have a site that shows duplicate page content for: www.autoserviceexpertsonline and www.autoserviceexpertsonline/index.html When looking at the files using the cms (intuit) file manager, I only see the /index.html version. I added the Caononical tag referencing/pointing to both the domain name only and then changed to .../index.html No matter how I code this, the seomoz On-Site SEO Grader still has a problem with it. Is this a bug with the Grading program or am I doing something wrong? Please help as I think this is causing me problems with Google and I'd like to get this right for future sites I will be working on. Thanks, Bill
On-Page Optimization | | Marvo0