Correct Canonical Reference
-
Aloha,
This is probably a noob question, but here we go:
I got a CMS e-commerce, which does not allow static "rel=canonical" declaration in the header and can only work with third-party modules (xml packages) that append "rel=canonical" to all pages dynamic pages within the URL. As a result, I have pages I'm declaring incomplete rel="canonical" as such:
Instead of:
rel="canonical" src="www.domainname.com/category.aspx"
I get:
rel="canonical" src="/category.aspx"
Coincidentally (or not), after the implementation of the canonical tag, pages that were continuously increasing in rankings started dropping, and, within a week, disappeared from the index completely.
Could the drop be a result of my canonical links pointing to incomplete URLs? If so, by fixing this issue, do I stand a chance of recovering my pages' SERPs?
-
It's possible that the canonical timing was just a coincidence and something deeper is going on, but I look at it this way - if it's easy to fix, fix it, and then you'll know for sure. It can be really tough to separate technical indexation problems from penalties.
-
Absolutely!
What gets me wondering is that only two pages have been removed from the index and do not appear in 1-1000 search results, others just dropped in rankings. Maybe, the two "most optimized" pages with most content and links got most "attention" from Google and got removed first.
-
Sorry, I could've sworn they recommended not using relative paths somewhere, but now I can't find that reference. I'd just make doubly sure they're resolving correctly. Given that these pages disappeared completely from the index, it's hard to believe the canonical tag addition was just an accident. You always have to start with what you know, and you know this changed.
-
Thanks for the link!
It says that canonical CAN be a relative path, and that Google will relate the path the the base URL _(section:"Can I use a relative path to specify the canonical, such as ?"). _
I will be posting my results here. Let's see if pages get re-indexed and recovered in SERPs. Hope this helps someone who is have a similar issue.
-
I haven't specifically tested the impact of relative URLs, but to the best of my knowledge, all canonical tags should be absolute URLs (including "http://"). I would've figured Google would just ignore the incomplete tags, at worst, but it's certainly possible they're attributing them incorrectly.
Since you know you made the change and that they pages have de-indexed, I'd definitely fix the issue, even if it's on a few test pages (not sure how difficult the implementation is).
One note - this is probably just a typo in your question, but it's href="", not src="" in the canonical tag. Google's reference page on the tag is actually pretty good:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
-
As I mentioned, right after the implementation, some of the landing pages I optimized disappeared from the index completely, some began dropping.
-
Can you check to make sure those pages are still indexed by Google? If the pages that were indexed are no longer indexed, then your canonical links have interfered with the ranking.
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
-
Items 30 - 50", however this is not accurate. Articles/Pages/Products counts are not close to this, products are 100+, so are the articles. We would want to either hide this or correct this.
We are running into this issue where we see items 30 -50 appear underneath the article title for google SERP descriptions . See screenshot or you can preview how its appearing in the listing for the site here: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=5I5fX939L6qxytMPh_el4AQ&q=site%3Adarbyscott.com&oq=site%3Adarbyscott.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6BQgAELEDOgIIADoECAAQCjoHCAAQsQMQClDYAljGJmC9J2gGcAB4AIABgwOIAYwWkgEIMjAuMy4wLjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6sAEA&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjd_4nR_ejrAhWqmHIEHYd7CUwQ4dUDCAk&uact=5 Items 30 - 50", however this is not accurate and we are not sure what google algorithm is counting. . Articles/Pages/Products counts are not close to this, products are 100+, so are the articles. Anyone have any thoughts on what google is pulling for the count and how to correct this? We would want to either hide this or correct this. view?usp=sharing
Web Design | | Raymond-Support0 -
Have Your Thoughts Changed Regarding Canonical Tag Best Practice for Pagination? - Google Ignoring rel= Next/Prev Tagging
Hi there, We have a good-sized eCommerce client that is gearing up for a relaunch. At this point, the staging site follows the previous best practice for pagination (self-referencing canonical tags on each page; rel=next & prev tags referencing the last and next page within the category). Knowing that Google does not support rel=next/prev tags, does that change your thoughts for how to set up canonical tags within a paginated product category? We have some categories that have 500-600 products so creating and canonicalizing to a 'view all' page is not ideal for us. That leaves us with the following options (feel it is worth noting that we are leaving rel=next / prev tags in place): Leave canonical tags as-is, page 2 of the product category will have a canonical tag referencing ?page=2 URL Reference Page 1 of product category on all pages within the category series, page 2 of product category would have canonical tag referencing page 1 (/category/) - this is admittedly what I am leaning toward. Any and all thoughts are appreciated! If this were in relation to an existing website that is not experiencing indexing issues, I wouldn't worry about these. Given we are launching a new site, now is the time to make such a change. Thank you! Joe
Web Design | | Joe_Stoffel1 -
Regarding rel=canonical on duplicate pages on a shopping site... some direction, please.
Good morning, Moz community: My name is David, and I'm currently doing internet marketing for an online retailer of marine accessories. While many product pages and descriptions are unique, there are some that have the descriptions duplicated across many products. The advice commonly given is to leave one page as is / crawlable (probably best for one that is already ranking/indexed), and use rel=canonical on all duplicates. Any idea for direction on this? Do you think it is necessary? It will be a massive task. (also, one of the products that we rank highest for, we have tons of duplicate descriptions.... so... that is sort of like evidence against the idea?) Thanks!
Web Design | | DavidCiti0 -
Duplicate Content & Canonicals
I am a bit confused about canonicals and whether they are "working" properly on my site. In Webmaster Tools, I'm showing about 13,000 pages flagged for duplicate content, but nearly all of them are showing two pages, one URL as the root and a second with parameters. Case in point, these two are showing as duplicate content: http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/vincent-van-gogh/starry-night http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/vincent-van-gogh/starry-night?substrate_id=3&product_style_id=8&frame_id=63&size=25x20 We have a canonical tag on each of the pages pointing to the one without the parameters. Pages with other parameters don't show as duplicates, just one root and one dupe per listing, So, am I not using the canonical tag properly? It is clearly listed as:Is the tag perhaps not formatted properly (I saw someone somewhere state that there needs to be a /> after the URL, but that seems rather picky for Google)?Suggestions?
Web Design | | sbaylor0 -
Rel Canonical tag usage on ECommerce website
Hello, I have read up on the rel canonical tag and I'm ready to apply it to my site's categorization structure. However, I'm concerned that, because my website does not have a "view all" button for our product pages, the rel canonical tag would not be appropriate. For example, if you come to my site's main category url, you come to mysite.com/main-category At this level - you get the top 12 items in the category. if you want to see the next page, you click a crawlable link that goes to mysite.com/main-category12-24 etc. etc. The site does not offer a view all function. Would applying the rel canonical tag be appropriate in this instance, or do I have to let Google crawl and index each page independantly? Thanks.
Web Design | | Blenny0 -
Canonical Tag
I've been helping someone out with their website, and I noticed the person who built the site made the canonical tags like this:
Web Design | | StandUpCubicles
href="http://www.example.com/" rel="canonical" /> I'm use to seeing it how seomoz does it: Does this matter? Is it ok to have it inverted? They also have another canonical tag in there like this:
var hs_canonical_url = "http\x3A\x2F\x2Fwww.example.com\x2Fhome" Any idea what that is? Could it be hurting the site?0 -
How to Add canonical tags on .ASPX pages?
What is the proper way (or is it possible) to add canonical tags on website pages that end in .aspx? If you add a canonical tag to the Master Page it will put that exact canonical tag on every page, which is bad. Is there a different version of the tag to put on individual pages? And one to put on the home page without the Master Page error?
Web Design | | Ryan-Bradley0 -
Correct use for Robots.txt
I'm in the process of building a website and am experimenting with some new pages. I don't want search engines to begin crawling the site yet. I would like to add the Robot.txt on my pages that I don't want them to crawl. If I do this, can I remove it later and get them to crawl those pages?
Web Design | | EricVallee340
