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
-
How can i fix the canonical tag issue?
I was experiencing today morning some issue on our website page. While I inspected the URL to Google for the page https://www.socprollect-mea.com/dubai-free-zone-company-formation/ I noted the issue. The canonical tag is showing errors only the source code showsThis is a serious issue right?Does anyone have the idea to solve this concern? Please help me to sort it out the issue and guide me on how to fix this WordPress issue.
On-Page Optimization | | nazfazy0 -
Category Pages are not Shown when searched for "brandname Category name"
Hi, Someone googled our brand name + category page name and our category page didn't showed up first so he says it's a bad job/thing. so help me to fix this. Googled "sepalika acid reflux" without quotes. Thank you.
On-Page Optimization | | Sepalika0 -
Understanding why our new page doesn't rank. Internal link structure to blame? + understand canonical pages more.
Hi guys. Sorry it's an essay...BUT, i think a lot of you will find this an interesting question. This question is in 2 (related) parts, and I imagine it would be an 'advanced' SEO question. Hoping you guys can help bring some real insight 🙂 Always amazed at the quality for this forum/ community. **Context... ** We had a duplicate content issue caused by this page and it's product permutations, so we placed canonical tags on all the product permutations to solve it. Worked a treat. However, we now have more **product ranges. **We now sell Diaries, Notebooks & Music books, which are clearly different from one another. So...we've placed canonical tags on all the product permutations leading back to the 'parent' theme. In other words, all the diary permutations 'lead back' to the diary page. All the notebooks permutations 'lead back' to the main notebook page. So on and so forth. Make sense so far? Context end..... Issue. Amazingly our Diary page outranks our notebook pagefor the search term 'Design your own Notebook'. The notebook page is well optimised for this search term, and the diary page avoids the word 'notebook' altogether (so no keyword cannibalisation going on). Possible reason? Our Diary page has a vast amount of internal links to it throughout our site. The notebook page has only a few. Could this be the issue? If so, what reading/ blogs/ content/ tools would you recommend to help understand and solve this problem? i.e) Better understanding internal link structure for SEO. 2nd part of the question (in the context of internal linking for SEO). When there are internal links to a page with a conical tag does that 'count' towards the 'parent page', or simply towards that specific page? I really hope that makes sense. If it's clear as mud just shout. Isaac. EDIT: All pages in question have been indexed since we added these changes to the site.
On-Page Optimization | | isaac6630 -
Rel="canonical" link should they be to or from an "SEO friendly" url
Thanks for taking the time to review this. So for our example, lets use the following SEO friendly link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry-and-biblical-studies/BA-biblical-studies We'll call this link the SEO VERSION The title of the college is" Pacific Christian College of Minstry and Biblical Studies" The title of the program is "BA Biblical Studies" The QUERY version of the link to this page would be something like: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/index.php?collegeid=22&programid=34 Keep in mind that the meta title, description, and keyword tags for the page are all administerable The SEO VERSION is automatically created from the title of the college, and the title of the program. Each one of these titles can be overidden with a URL slug individually. For instance, the admin could make the link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry/biblical-studies by changing the slug for the college to "pacific-christian-college-of-ministry" and the slug for the program to "biblical-studies". Let's call this version the SLUG VERSION So now we have multiple ways to get to the same content. The question on the table is what is best practice for the rel="canonical" link to keep from getting dinged for duplicate content. Let's say that our SEO VERSION is the canonical link for 1 year. Then the choice was made to optimize the links thru the slugs creating the SLUG VERSION. My assumption is that we would keep the SEO VERSION as the canonical link. But then let's say 6 months later that the title of the program is changed in the admin. Now the SEO VERSION has changed and so has the canonical link. Do we lose the link juice garnered over the last 18 months? It would seem to me, that if we use the QUERY version as the canonical link, then any optimizations or changes affect everything except the canonical link, thus keeping the previous link juice earned. But is having an ugly URL as the canonical link detrimental to SEO? Please advise.
On-Page Optimization | | robertdonnell0 -
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 -
What does this mean on first step up setting up a campaign? "Having two "twin" domains that both resolve forces them to battle for SERP positions, making your SEO efforts less effective. We suggest redirecting one, then entering the other here."
I am BRAND new to this, and setting up my first campaign. I choose subdomain, and entered www.pdsaz.com. This is the message I receive: We have detected that the domain www.pdsaz.com and the domain pdsaz.com both respond to web requests and do not redirect. Having two "twin" domains that both resolve forces them to battle for SERP positions, making your SEO efforts less effective. We suggest redirecting one, then entering the other here.
On-Page Optimization | | cschwartzel0 -
Help I don't understand Rel Canonical
I'm really stuck on how to fix up Rel Canonical errors on a Wordpress site. I went in and changed all the URLs to remove the www and added / to the end. I get this message on page analysis details: <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://www.some-url.com.au/",</dd> <dd>"http://some-url..com.au/", and</dd> <dd>"http://some-url..com.au/"</dd> <dd>Well the first one with the www doesn't exists and the second two urls are the same! (Note that I have removed the actual URL for this post)</dd> <dd>I'm not sure how to read and fix the errors from the reports ether. The only issues I can see is that the 'Tag Value' has the www and the 'Page Title - URL' doesn't have the www.
On-Page Optimization | | zapprabbit
</dd>0 -
Using rel="nofollow"
Hello, Quick question really, as far as the SERPs are concerned If I had a site with say 180 links on each page - 80 above suggested limit, would putting 'rel="nofollow"' on 80 of these be as good as only having 100 links per page? Currently I have removed the links, but wereally need these as they point to networked sites that we own and are relevant... But we dont want to look spammy... An example of one of the sites without the links can be seen here whereas a site with the links can be seen here You can see the links we are looking to keep (at the bottom) and why... Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | TwoPints0