Canonical Help?
-
This canonical thing is brand new to me and I'm trying to wrap my mind around it.
Here is my situation: I use Wordpress. I am showing duplicate content with the following url's
http://crosstrainingandfitness.com/online-workout-blog/
http://crosstrainingandfitness.com/online-workout-blog/page/2/
Would setting a canonical link solve this? If so, what do I put in the Canonical box for this category (online workout blog). I use Yoast's Wordpress SEO plugin.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
-
I am assuming you have some content on http://crosstrainingandfitness.com/online-workout-blog/ and the continuation of that on http://crosstrainingandfitness.com/online-workout-blog/page/2/
In this case I would go with rel=”next” and rel=”prev”
Read this for more info : http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
So basically you would have
this in the head of page http://crosstrainingandfitness.com/online-workout-blog/
http://crosstrainingandfitness.com/online-workout-blog/page/2/" />
and in the head of http://crosstrainingandfitness.com/online-workout-blog/page/2/ you would add
Assuming you have no page 3
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
-
Meta tagsTags problem I need help
Hello I have a problem on my site and I want to help solve it I allow adding tags in search engines However, when writing new content, tags are not added to search engines This is my website link تيربو1
On-Page Optimization | | Mosalah20 -
We´re in trouble with our on site internal link optimization - please help
Dear Moz community, We have made a great mistake. Looking at keyword search volumes somehow Moz showed volumes for two keywords which only differentiate by an '**s (plural) as same. **Now we optimized our internal links (all links have the keyword) for the singular word. Now looking at other search volume estimations from competitors we see, that the plural has 5 times bigger volume. Our issue: If we change some of the category links now to another keyword, we will loose our ranking with the singular word. Correct? If we do not change any of our internal links, we will never rank in top 6 with the keyword. (currently singular is 6 and plural is 15) What would you reccomend?
On-Page Optimization | | advertisingcloud0 -
Using Canonical & INDEX, FOLLOW meta tag
I am sort of new to this, and working with an overseas development team on an eCommerce site. I am curious if the Canonical tag will supersede the tag, or if it is best to remove this tag entirely for duplicate product pages?
On-Page Optimization | | BretDarby1 -
I have a question about having to much content on a single page. Please help :)
I am working on a music related site. We are building a feature in our system to allow people to write information about songs on their playlist. So when a song is currently being played a user can read some cool facts or information about the song. http://imgur.com/5jFumPW ( screenshot). Some playlists have over 100 songs and could be completely random in genre and artist. I am wondering if some of these playlists have over 5,000 words of content if that is going to hurt us? We will be very strict about making sure its non spammy and good content. Also for the titles of the content is it bad to have over 100 h3 tags on one page? Just want to make sure we are on the right track. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | mikecrib10 -
New adsense account request rejected - need help
I'm moving my company to Australia, shutting down the US company. Google said I had to request a new Adsense account, so I did. They opened the account, I added the same ads, in the same places, and they have rejected my application. What do I do now? The other account has been open since 2004. They never said a word about this before. After two years of working on improvements, now I'm just about destroyed. I need some help, because I thought I knew what I was doing, but obviously not! As usual. their helpful response is no help at all. http://bit.ly/NPACk - there are no G ads on the front page http://bit.ly/V8ubB5 - this is a typical story http://bit.ly/UpTC2r - this is a typical press release As mentioned in our welcome email, we conduct a second review of your AdSense application once AdSense code is placed on your site(s). As a result of this review, we have disapproved your account for the following violation(s): Issues: - Site does not comply with Google policies --------------------- Further detail: Site does not comply with Google policies: We're unable to approve your AdSense application at this time for one of the reasons listed below or another reason listed in our program policies ([https://support.google.com/adsense/bin/topic.py?topic=1271507](https://support.google.com/adsense/bin/topic.py?topic=1271507)). We recommend that you review the information provided below and make the necessary changes to your site. 1\. You need to improve your site’s user experience To ensure a good experience for users and advertisers, publishers participating in the AdSense program are required to adhere to the Webmaster Quality guidelines ([http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769](http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769)). These guidelines provide many tips to help you to provide a positive experience for your users. You’ll also find more useful information in this AdSense blog post which highlights five user experience principles: [http://adsense.blogspot.com/2012/10/publisher-insights-part-1-5-principles.html](http://adsense.blogspot.com/2012/10/publisher-insights-part-1-5-principles.html). Applying these principles will help you to provide a great experience for users on your site. 2\. Your site is a chat site which is not compliant with our policy Publishers are encouraged to experiment with a variety of ad placements and ad formats. However, as stated in our program policies ([http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=48182](http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=48182)), AdSense publishers may not place ad code, search boxes or search results in chat programs. This includes, but is not limited to, instant messaging (IMs), chat sites and other pages that contains dynamic content. 3\. You need to remove all content that encourages violation of Google product policies Publishers may not provide the means to circumvent the policies of any Google products, such as by allowing users to download YouTube videos, or encourage the violation of Google AdSense policies. Moreover, publishers may not make use of Google brand features such as logos, screenshots, or other distinctive features without our express permission. For more information, please visit our Help Center ([http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=as2&answer=1348688&rd=1](http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=as2&answer=1348688&rd=1)). 4\. Your site is dedicated to the sale and distribution of term papers We’re happy to see our publishers’ sites full of useful and informative content, however, as stated in our program policies ( [https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=105953](https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=105953) ), the sale or distribution of term papers, or any other content that is illegal, promotes illegal activity, or infringes on the legal rights of others is not allowed. Please review the AdSense program policies ([http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=48182](http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=48182)) to ensure that your site meets all of the requirements for approval. As soon as you’ve made the necessary changes, we’ll be happy to take another look at your application.
On-Page Optimization | | loopyal0 -
Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.
Please clarify: In the page optimization tool, seomoz recommends using the canonical url tag on the unique page itself. Is it the same canonical url tag used when want juice to go to the original page? Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today. Please give example.
On-Page Optimization | | AllIsWell0 -
Does Archive pages help in indexation of the site?
Hello, we have an argue internally regarding if we should keep the archive pages on a news site or not. Pro Archive pages help indexation of the news. although not all of us are sure about this. Con archive pages receive from none to little traffic archive pages are source of duplicate content, duplicate titles - which we can manage some how but does it worth? What is your opinion on this topic, should we keep it or not? thanks, Irina
On-Page Optimization | | InformMedia0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0