Canonical Tag being ignored?
-
I have a blog post I created and added a canonical to that page, yet the blog post is the one showing in Google's results and not the canonical version. Why is this?
-
Thanks Ben. Very annoying how Google does that.
-
Thanks. It is likely #2 with a combination of more external links going to that page.
-
Yeah, it can be tough to tell. Adding to Ben's list, which I'd agree with:
(1) There's a conflicting crawler signal in place - META Robots, 301-redirect, etc.
(2) Internal links still point to the non-canonical version (also a conflicting signal)
(3) It's not duplicate enough, for lack of a better way to say it (Google has over-rided it)
(4) There's something wrong with the target page, like a bad header
-
Obvious one first - it could be an error in how you've implemented the canonical tag.
Or Google may have decided that it trusts/likes the duplicate page more than the original. As with anything if Google think you're wrong then they'll override your decision and do as they please.
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
-
Anything wrong with multiple meta descriptions and multiple title tags? We have 2 by mistake
Hi, As I stated in the we have 2 meta description and title tags. Will this hurts? How Google handles this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Agonizing over Meta length or content seems to make no sense as Google seems to be ignoring them!
Real frustrating for me to see Google ignoring my 'Meta Descriptions' and 'mining' my site for any description it chooses. For years my meta has always been displayed and was set up with best practices according to MOZ. My site snopro.co.nz and snopro.co.nz/wanaka-ski-hire have plenty of competition in the market but we are the only ones with a huge point of difference, we are web based only, and deliver the ski rental gear. My quality meta was a way I could control the text and use for a good CTR due to offering something unique in the 'Meta' (Rental Delivery). Seems the only way I can 'control' any text is with 'Adwords' ...funny that! Any others out there finding the same? Justin. BTW my meta is - 'Snopro Ski Rental Delivery Wanaka. We deliver & custom fit ski hire in the comfort of your accommodation. Hassle Free. Multi-day save 10%. Book here'
Algorithm Updates | | judsta0 -
Can 'Jump link'/'Anchor tag' urls rank in Google for keywords?
E.g. www.website.com/page/#keyword-anchor-text Where the part after the # is a section of the page you can jump to, and the title of that section is a secondary keyword you want the page to rank for?
Algorithm Updates | | rwat0 -
Homepage title tag: "Keywords for robots" vs "Phrases for users"
Hi all, We keep on listening and going through the articles that "Google is all about user" and people suggesting to just think about users but not search engine bots. I have gone through the title tags of all our competitors websites. Almost everybody directly targeted primary and secondary keywords and few more even. We have written a very good phrase as definite title tag for users beginning with keyword. But we are not getting ranked well comparing to the less optimised or backlinked websites. Two things here to mention is our title tag is almost 2 years old. Title tag begins with secondary keyword with primary keyword like "seo google" is secondary keyword and "seo" is primary keyword". Do I need to completely focus on only primary keyword to rank for it? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Does Google ignores page title suffix?
Hi all, It's a common practice giving the "brand name" or "brand name & primary keyword" as suffix on EVERY page title. Well then it's just we are giving "primary keyword" across all pages and we expect "homepage" to rank better for that "primary keyword". Still Google ranks the pages accordingly? How Google handles it? The default suffix with primary keyword across all pages will be ignored or devalued by Google for ranking certain pages? Or by the ranking of website improves for "primary keyword" just because it has been added to all page titles?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Header tags ratio matters?
Do we have anything like header tags ratio as of now in favour to search engines? Of course no multiple H1 tags. What if h2 or h3 tags are more than each others? We have top navigation links and one more navigation links which are h2 tags across all pages of website. Does this hurt?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Large site with faceted navigation using rel=canonical, but Google still has issues
First off, I just wanted to mention I did post this on one other forum so I hope that is not completely against the rules here or anything. Just trying to get an idea from some of the pros at both sources. Hope this is received well. Now for the question..... "Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site:" Gotta love these messages in GWT. Anyway, I wanted to get some other opinions here so if anyone has experienced something similar or has any recommendations I would love to hear them. First off, the site is very large and utilizes faceted navigation to help visitors sift through results. I have implemented rel=canonical for many months now to have each page url that is created based on the faceted nav filters, push back to the main category page. However, I still get these damn messages from Google every month or so saying that they found too many pages on the site. My main concern obviously is wasting crawler time on all these pages that I am trying to do what they ask in these instances and tell them to ignore and find the content on page x. So at this point I am thinking about possibly using robots.txt file to handle these, but wanted to see what others around here thought before I dive into this arduous task. Plus I am a little ticked off that Google is not following a standard they helped bring to the table. Thanks for those who take the time to respond in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | PeteGregory0 -
Any ideas on how Google +1 handles URLs and canonicals?
If your URL string shows up in a search and they +1 the URL with the coding in it will the +1 transfer to the canonical page? Example: site.com/locations/arizona/?utm_source=go gets a Google +1 from a user. The page itself has a canonical for site.com/locations/arizona/ Does google credit the canonical with the +1 or do they then have dup pages with separate +1 scores?
Algorithm Updates | | Thos0030