Rel="canonical"
-
Can you tell me if we've implemented rel="canonical" properly?
We want this to be our primary:
http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads-
while this would be duplicate and refer robots back to the URL above:
http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6054284
We've added the following to both pages: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- "/>
Thanks
-
Ideally, you should use both, but I realize that could be a lot of work. Canonical URLs will work well for the case you mentioned above. Just remember to link to your canonical URL on internal pages and have inbound links point to that canonical URL. You should ask site owners that host those inbound links to change if possible or use 301 to redirect those links that can't be changed.
You may also want to consider creating redirect rules to add or remove the trailing slash for all URLs, because links with and without the slash are considered different URLs and will split link juice.
-
I have a follow question about this. I have a zen cart eCommerce site. Just learned and read both articles that Saibose mentioned but still not sure how to proceed. I have dup content issues. So do I use 301 or rel=canonical? I have two variations. (that I see for now)
1. Main category _ Sub category_product examples below
http://www.perfectindesign.com/awards
http://www.perfectindesign.com/awards/acrylic-awards
http://www.perfectindesign.com/awards/acrylic-awards/slanted-award
Do I pass all link juice to the main category ie awards or sub cat. (should mention there are three sub categories in this example.
2. Main category _product
same as above with out sub categories.
Thanks
-
Likewise, your posted links lead to white pages. If you still need help with this, get those links fixed for us.
-
Tried a couple of times and these pages aren't loading for me in a couple of different browsers. Not sure if you've changed something since the posting of this question, but if you're still subscribed to this thread you may want to look into this.
As someone said already I would just like to reinforce that rel=canonical only has to be used on the target page, however since these pages you're referencing aren't exactly the same you DON'T want to use a 301 redirect. Your rel=canonical tag will simply signal the search engines to pass all ranking to your main page, which is actually a better implementation than using 301, albeit it won't make a huge difference on a small scale.
If this is a Wordpress blog, which I can't really tell if it is or not since the pages aren't loading, you may want to try the WP canonical plugin. It will semi-automate all of your canonical tags so you're not having to modify code all the time.
-
i would use a 301 redirect for this
rel conical tells the search engine where the original content is, it does not pass link juice to the original content. while 301 tells the SE that it is the same page and all link juice will be awarded to the one page. -
I think that Rand posted an article sometime back on this.
Lindsay followed it up last year with this:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not
You can read through them and have a good understanding of the best practices involved.
What i dont understand is why have you implemented rel=canonical to both pages. Its not required on your target page, that is, http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads-
You just require it on your other page.
Hope that helps.
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
-
Canonical tags in the body?
Hi there, Does anyone know if placing canonical tags in the body instead of the header of a page will still "take"? The system we are on means that making an editable header is no easy business and I was just wondering how big of a difference it makes to have it in a different area. Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | Whittie0 -
Magento Canonical & Default Robots Settings
Hello! I'm working with Magento 1.9 for an eCommerce site with several hundred products. Currently I understand it is best practices to use the Canonical tag, however I also have my default robots set to "Index, Follow". Will this cause an issue having product pages set to index, follow but also having a canonical tag included? What are some best practices regarding Magento default robots & canonical tags? Any help is appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | BretDarby0 -
"translation" of code in htaccess file
Hi everyone! I am a newbie to the whole SEO and html thing and I am trying to get a better understanding of the "behind the scenes" part of my website. I hope I can find someone here who can translate a piece of code for me that I have in my htaccess file: Options -Multiviews
On-Page Optimization | | momof4
Options +FollowSymLinks
rewritecond $1 !^(index.php|public|tmp|robots.txt|template.html|favicon.ico|images|css|uploads)
rewritecond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
rewritecond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
rewriterule ^(.*)$ index.php?link=$1 [NC,L,QSA] I know that something is getting redirected to the index file, but what (or when) exactly? Does the word "robots"mean that search engine crawlers are getting redirected here? And is this good or bad (in terms of SEO)? Or is this redirecting people who try to get to my robots/ template or image files?? Thanks in advance for any answers!0 -
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
Your opinion on "Keyword | Keyword 2 | Keyword 3 - Sitename" Meta Title
While I'm personally against It I have seen it used. I would think that Google might see this as some degree of keyword stuffing, rather than a 'natural' title, which may hinder ranking. What are your thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | azu250 -
Will Google handle "this not that" pages differently?
If you create pages about "try keyword1 not keyword2" will there be any barriers to getting the pages ranked for keyword2? Example: You have furnished rental units in a small town, and you offer nightly/weekly rentals. You want to rank for "town hotel" since you offer the same service as a hotel. Since you're not really a hotel, you create a page called "Better than a hotel: Town nightly rental units". Anyone know if Google has an algorithm to detect this (they would have to detect the meaning of the words you were using and know that you were promoting something other than a hotel) and determine you're not really relevant to "town hotel" and not rank you well? I think they probably do not, as I've seen things like Google Adsense Alternatives articles ranking well for the term Google Adsense, or Boycott Godaddy sites ranking well for the term godaddy. But I would like to hear any evidence or facts others know of.
On-Page Optimization | | AdamThompson0 -
Canonical URL Tag
Hi, I have two pages that are identical on my site: http://www.absolutepower.nl/creatine-monohydraat and http://www.absolutepower.nl/CREATINE/creatine-monohydraat Should I use the canonical URL tag in this case? Thanks, Jasper
On-Page Optimization | | Japking0 -
"And" vs "&"
I blog for hotels and I am wondering whether it is best to have on a wordpress tagline the name of the hotel such as Holiday Inn and Suites vs Holiday Inn & Suites. In Google AdWords, the "and" keyword always beats out the "&" word in exact search. The "&" just always looks cleaner. Also, when I refer to the hotel within a blog post, should I use the "and" or "&" in the name? Please help me understand which is best for seo. Thank you!
On-Page Optimization | | lwilkins0