What is "canonical." And what do I need to do to fix it?
-
I'm seeing about 450 warnings on this.
What is "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical."
And what do I need to do to fix it?
-
Anthony's definitely got the basics covered. How to handle any particular situation can get pretty tricky. I wrote a post about it, and that post got very long very fast:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/duplicate-content-in-a-post-panda-world
I took a quick look at your campaign (I have Staff access), and it seems your login page is carrying an event ID - so every event is creating a different URL, but they all land on one page. That could spin out 100s of duplicates on Google, and that login page has little or no search value. A canonical tag would definitely be a good bet here.
You may have other issues going on, but clean up one at a time - getting that number down can definitely be beneficial and help boost your ranking power.
-
Anthony's response is correct for explaining what a canonical does. My response is for how to implement it. Say you have an online store that uses a bread crumb system. While you may have one main URL for a widget, multiple URLs could be created if visitors are taking multiple paths to find this widget. So say the main URL for this widget's page is: example.com/widget You could have many copies of this page on your website with different URLs. If you have URLs such as example.com/widget/1, example.com/widget/2, example.com/widget/3, and they all have the same content as example.com/widget, Google will see all of these pages as being duplicate content. So to take care of this you use a canonical. If you want example.com/widget to be the page that has the authority over the rest of the other URLs with the same content, you will need to create a canonical. The canonical for example.com/widget is: SEE EDIT BELOW Then you will want to take the canonical and put it somewhere inbetween the header for all of those URLs that have the same content. And as Anthony said www.example.com/widget is considered a different page than example.com/widget, so it would need the canonical from above as well, and the same goes for www. example.com/widget/1-3. http://www.ginzametrics.com/cheatsheet This link will take you to a great tool that generates meta tags and can also create a canonical link for you, if you don't want to type it all out. To make a canonical with the tool just copy and paste the main URL that you would like to use and it will create the canonical link below that you can copy and paste into the the pages head. EDIT: I don't think SEOmoz will let you post canonicals. But if you go the the link with the tool I provided you should still be able to create a canonical. It is a very simple and straight forward tool that can generate the canonical for you. Good luck.
-
There is a very good explanation of "canonical" at http://tinyurl.com/38ycpw8. by Jody Nimetz
The first part of it I have inserted here..... trust it helps:
Canonical URL: the search engine friendly URL that you want the search engines to treat as authoritative. In other words, a canonical URL is the URL that you want visitors to see.
Quite often canonical URLs were used to describe the homepage. The typical example used is that most people treat the following URLs as the same:
www.example.com
example.com
www.example.com/index.html
example.com/home.aspThe fact is that these are all different URLs. From a search engine perspective, this can cause a bit of an issue. Hence the idea of canonicalization. Canonicalization is the process of picking the best URL (to present to the search engines) when there are multiple choices available. Typically a search engine, such as Google will attempt to pick the best URL that they feel is the authority for that page. However, sometimes they may in fact select the wrong one. Now let’s suggest that you have product pages that depending on how the user navigated to the pager returns a different URL… same page but different URL, now we have a duplicate content issue. Not to mention the nightmare for interlinking and external link inventories.
The easiest way to avoid this is to let the Search engines and the users know which is your “preferred URL” a.k.a canonical URL.............................
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
-
Product Subdomain Outranking "Marketing" Domains
Hello, Moz community! I have been puzzling about what to do for a client. Here is the challenge. The client's "product"/welcome page lives at www.client.com this page allows the visitor to select the country/informational site they want OR to login to their subdomain/install of the product. Google is choosing this www.client.com url as the main result for client brand searches. In a perfect world, for searchers in the US, we would get served the client's US version of the information/marketing site which lives at https://client.com/us, and so on for other country level content (also living in a directory for that country) It's a brand new client, we've done geo-targeting within the search console, and I'm kind of scared to rock the boat by de-indexing this www.client.com welcome screen. Any thoughts, ideas, potential solutions are so appreciated. THANKS! Thank you!
Technical SEO | | SimpleSearch0 -
Rel=canonical and redirect on same page
Hi Guys, Am I going slightly mad but why would you want to have a redirect and a canonical redirecting back to the same page. For Instance https://handletrade.co.uk/pull-handles/pull-handles-zcs-range/d'-pull-handle-19mm-dia.-19-x-150mm-ss/?tag=Dia.&page=2 and in the source code:- <link href="<a class="attribute-value">https://handletrade.co.uk/d'-pull-handle-19mm-dia.-19-x-150mm-ss/</a>" rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" /> Perfect! exactly what it is intended to do. But then this page is 301 redirected tohttps://handletrade.co.uk/pull-handles/pull-handles-zcs-range/d'-pull-handle-19mm-dia.-19-x-150mm-ss/ The site is built in open cart and I think it's the SEO plugin that needs tweaking. Could this cause poor SERP visibility? This is happening across the whole site. Surely the canonical should just point to the proper page and then there is no need for an additional bounce.
Technical SEO | | nezona1 -
How do I get my pages to go from "Submitted" to "Indexed" in Google Webmaster Tools?
Background: I recently launched a new site and it's performing much better than the old site in terms of bounce rate, page view, pages per session, session duration, and conversions. As suspected, sessions, users, and % new sessions are all down. Which I'm okay with because the the old site had a lot of low quality traffic going to it. The traffic we have now is much more engaged and targeted. Lastly, the site was built using Squarespace and was launched the middle of August. **Question: **When reviewing Google Webmaster Tools' Sitemaps section, I noticed it says 57 web pages Submitted, but only 5 Indexed! The sitemap that's submitted seems to be all there. I'm not sure if this is a Squarespace thing or what. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | Nate_D0 -
Impact of "restricted by robots" crawler error in WT
I have been wondering about this for a while now with regards to several of my sites. I am getting a list of pages that I have blocked in the robots.txt file. If I restrict Google from crawling them, then how can they consider their existence an error? In one case, I have even removed the urls from the index. And do you have any idea of the negative impact associated with these errors. And how do you suggest I remedy the situation. Thanks for the help
Technical SEO | | phogan0 -
Video thumbnail pages with "sort" feature -- tons of duplicate content?
A client has 2 separate pages for video thumbnails. One page is "popular videos" with a sort function for over 700 pages of video thumbnails with 10 thumbnails and short desriptions per page. (/videos?sort_by=popularity). The second page is "latest videos" (/videos?sort_by=latest) with over 7,000 pages. Both pages have a sort function -- including latest, relevance, popularity, time uploaded, etc. Many of the same video thumbnails appear on both pages. Also, when you click a thumbnail you get a full video page and these pages appear to get indexed well. There seem to be duplicate content issues between the "popular" and "latest" pages, as well as within the sort results on each of those pages. (A unique URL is generated everytime you use the sort function i.e. /videos?sort_by=latest&uploaded=this_week). Before my head explodes, what is the best way to treat this? I was thinking a noindex,follow meta robot on every page of thumbnails since the individual video pages are well indexed, but that seems extreme. Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | 540SEO0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0 -
301 or Rel=canonical
Should I use a 301 redirect for redirect mywebsite.com to www.mywebsite.com or use a rel=canonical?? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | LeslieVS0 -
Does using tags instead of " " good for SEO purposes?
I'm currently using <pr>tags for paragraphs and came across an article that said it is better for search engines to see the</pr> tag than
Technical SEO | | ibex
tag to separate paragraphs.0