Canonical Tag Uses Source Title and Meta Data?
-
When optimising a regional same language micro site within a sub folder of a .com it dawned on me that our use of the hreflang and canonical meta elements will render individual elements such as H1 and title obsolete.
As a canonical tag takes the canonical source title and meta right?
It would still have value in optimising localised headings though?
Appreciate any thoughts, suggestions (o:
-
This is a really complex topic and a special case of the canonical tag.. It also doesn't help that Google keeps adjusting their advice. See this thread:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=189077
"When Google discovers a cluster of pages with a single canonical URL, our algorithms will use the title and snippet from the canonical version in our search results. Therefore, it's a good idea not to include region-specific content in the title and meta description tags of the canonical URL. For example, use "Example Widget Inc" instead of "Example Widget USA Inc" or "Example Widget UK"."
So, what about the non-canonical pages? Well, the implication is that, if you use hreflang AND canonical, you'll avoid dupe content problems but the proper pages may rank in the proper regions, even with the canonical tag. In that case, you'd want to include regional variations in the non-canonical META data (for regional searchers). Unfortunately, I haven't seen good data on this yet.
Like Istvan, my gut reaction is to try hreflang first, without the canonical, IF you're not having duplicate content issues or seeing regional variations cross over into inappropriate regions. If you are seeing that, then you'll probably need both.
-
Use only the Hreflang instead of hrefland+canonical combo.
-
This is what we have done, as there are multiple languages and multiple countries.
We are going to use HREFLANG and Canonical, but doesn't this combination mean that titles and meta description from the canonical url is used on each of the duplicated regional sites?
-
Ok,
let's say example.com/us/ is targeted to US and example.com/uk/ is targeted to UK.
If you put a canonical on both that targets to other one, one of them will disappear from Google Index.
What you can do is use only the HREFLANG attribute. And use that to target en-US and en-GB as languages. Maybe that can boost it a little-bit.
I hope that helped,
Istvan
-
I understand what both do, but thanks for the clarification.
I am wondering if when using the canonical to group same language micro-sites say English American and UK the heading elements are localised say:
English title / meta contains : "specialist organisation"
English American title / meta contains: "specialty organization"
Would the cannonical source (the american version) be shown to a UK audience?
Just pondering is all, thanks again Istvan.
-
Hi Wvicary,
I think you miss-understood the canonical tag usage.
After applying the canonical to a page you choose which version of the page will be included in the search index.
For example: you have:
if in the index file you insert the canonical tag, which points to example.com then example.com/index.html will be excluded from the search results.
now HREFLANG: what id does is creates a connection between same content in different languages. For example you have the domain: www.example.com and have three main languages: EN, NL and DE. and you choose to have three different sub-folders for each:
inserting in the header the HREFLANG attribute will help the secondary languages gain reputation and not for localization.
Read through John Doherty's article. He tested quite well the HREFLANG.
Here is the article: http://www.johnfdoherty.com/hreflang-markup-testing/
I hope this helped,
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
-
Is Google ignoring my canonicals?
Hi, We have rel=canonical set up on our ecommerce site but Google is still indexing pages that have rel=canonical. For example, http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?colour=7883&p=3&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?p=4&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/children.html?colour=7886&mode=list These are all indexed but all have rel=canonical implemented. Can anyone explain why this has happened?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HappyJackJr0 -
Canonical tags for duplicate listings
Hi there, We are restructuring a website. The website originally lists jobs that will have duplicate content. We have tried to ask the client not to use duplicates but apparently their industry is not something they can control. The recommendations I had is to have categories (which will have the idea description for a group of jobs), and the job listing pages. The job listing pages will then have canonical tags pointing to the category page as the primary URL to be indexed. Another opinion came from a third party that this can be seen as if we are tricking Google and would get penalised, **Is that even true? **Why would Google penalise for this if thats their recommendations in the first place? This third party suggested using nofollow on the links to these listings, or even not not index them all together. What are your thoughts? Thanks Issa
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iQi0 -
Are ALL CAPS construed as spamming if they are used in a meta description tag call to action?
I know this seems like an old school question. As a long time SEO I would never use ALL CAPS in a title tag (unless a brand name is capitalized). However I recently came across a Moz video about creating better calls to action in the meta description tags. Some of the examples had CTAs that were using all caps (i.e. CALL NOW! or LOWEST QUOTES!) I realize there is a debate about the user experience implications. However I'm more concerned about search engines penalizing websites that are using ALL CAPS CTAs in their meta description tags. Any feedback/advice would be appreciated. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB0 -
Is a 301 Redirect and a Canonical Tag on Uppercase to Lowercase Pages Correct?
We have a medium size site that lost more than 50% of its traffic in July 2013 just before the Panda rollout. After working with a SEO agency, we were advised to clean up various items, one of them being that the 10k+ urls were all mixed case (i.e. www.example.com/Blue-Widget). A 301 redirect was set up thereafter forcing all these urls to go to a lowercase version (i.e. www.example.com/blue-widget). In addition, there was a canonical tag placed on all of these pages in case any parameters or other characters were incorporated into a url. I thought this was a good set up, but when running a SEO audit through a third party tool, it shows me the massive amount of 301 redirects. And, now I wonder if there should only be a canonical without the redirect or if its okay to have tens of thousands 301 redirects on the site. We have not recovered yet from the traffic loss yet and we are wondering if its really more of a technical problem than a Google penalty. Guidance and advise from those experienced in the industry is appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ABK7170 -
Proper Form for Title & Description Tags
Greetings MOZ Community: I operate a real estate web site in New York (www.nyc-officespace-leader.com) that I suspect has been hit by Panda 4.0. I believe a problem is thin content on product pages, which in my case are 350 listing pages. However I am also looking at how title and description tags are formatted for these 350 pages to ensure this is not a factor in the ranking drop. The title descriptions are written like this: <title></span><span class="webkit-html-tag">Flatiron loft for rent | West 21st Street | 1441SF $6604/month</span><span class="webkit-html-tag"></title> Is this sufficiently diverse? Will constantly repeating various street names, square footages and prices work against me? Will Google in a sense consider this thin or repetitive content? It does provide the visitor with key information. The descriptions meta tags are written along these lines: description" content="One of the most desirable full floor sublets in Midtown South. Recent build out, pristine condition, panoramic views, tech chic, spectacular. Top location." /><meta< span=""></meta<> From an SEO perspective are these critical tags written the way they should be? Thanks everyone!! Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Canonical tag vs 301
What is the reason that 301 is preferred and not rel canonical tag when it comes to implementing redirect. Page rank will be lost in both cases. So, why prefer one over the other ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Should I completly remove the meta tags keywords in the html page?
So if the metag is not longer used by the search engines should I keep them in my html ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lomastravel0 -
301 Redirect or Canonical Tag or Leave Them Alone? Different Pages - Similar Content
We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are: **Version 1 -- Preferred Version: ** http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx Title = California Business for Sale Ads - California Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker Version 2: http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-California.aspx Title = California Business for Sale | 3124 California Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net Version 3: http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml Title = California Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - California Business for Sale While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical. We were wondering if it would make good sense to either (A) 301 redirect Versions 2 and 3 to the preferred Version 1 page or (B) put Canonical Tags on Versions 2 and 3 labeling Version 1 as the preferred version. We have this issue for all 50 U.S. States -- I've mentioned California here but the same applies for Alabama through Wyoming - same issue. Given that there are 3 different flavors and all are showing up in the Search Results -- some on the same 1st page of results -- which probably is a good thing for now -- should we do a 301 redirect or a Canonical Tag on Versions 2 and 3? Seems like with Google cracking down on duplicate content, it might be wise to be proactive. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Matt M
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWM37720