Screaming From occurences and canonicals what does it all mean
-
Bonjourno from Wetherby UK...
Ive used a package called screamong frog to diagnose canonical errors but can anyone tell me what this means? http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/zymurgy_bucket/understand-occurances-canonical.jpg
Thanks in advance.
David
-
Thank you for all your replies this was bugging me but the pain of not knowing has vanished like the morning mist as the warming glow of sunshine illumunates truth
-
David
Looks like you may have an issue there. The "address" and "canonical 1" should match about 99% of the time. Right now you're telling Google to index all those different address pages as a single URL (About/right-to-manage)... something to look at - and the suggestions below are both good as well.
-Dan
-
I agree with what Streamline Metrics said, I just want to add to this by linking you to a great SEOmoz post on canonicalization which may help you clear things up more.
In your case, having 1 rel="canonical" tag per page is what you want, so you should be fine with that, just make sure that the canonical tags (listed under canonical 1 in Screaming Frog) is the actual URL that you want.
Hope this helps
Zach -
It simply means how many canonical tags are found on that specific page. So if you had two rel=canonical tags on a page, it would say 2 occurrences. For more info, check out http://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/user-guide/tabs/
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
-
Canonical Tags Before HTTPS MIgration
Hi Guys I previously asked a question that was helpfully answered on this forum, but I have just one last question to ask. I'm migrating a site tomorrow from http to https. My one question is that it was mentioned that I may need to "add canonical tags to the http pages, pointing to their https equivalent prior to putting the server level redirect in place. This is to ensure that you won't be causing yourself issues if the redirect fails for any reason." This is an e-commerce site with a number of links, is there a quick way of doing this? Many Thanks
Technical SEO | | ruislip180 -
Best Practice - Disavow tool for non-canonical domain, 301 Redirect
The Situation: We submitted to the Disavow tool for a client who (we think) had an algorithmic penalty because of their backlink profile. However, their domain is non-canonical. We only had access to http://clientswebsite.com in Webmaster Tools, so we only submitted the disavow.txt for that domain. Also, we have been recommending (for months - pre disavow) they redirect from http://clientswebsite.com to http://www.clientswebsite.com, but aren't sure how to move forward because of the already submitted disavow for the non-www site. 1.) If we redirect to www. will the submitted disavow transfer or follow the redirect? 2.) If not, can we simply re-submit the disavow for the www. domain before or after we redirect? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | thebenro0 -
Canonicals
We have a client that has his products listed on 20+ different websites, including 4 of his own. Also, he only has 1 of everything, so once he sells it then the product is gone. To battle this duplication issue, plus having a short internet lifespan of less than 4 weeks, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to canonical the products back to the category page. Kind of like using canonical tags on your "used blue widget" and "used red widget" pages back to the "used widgets" page. Would this help with the duplicate content issues? Is this a proper use of a canonical?
Technical SEO | | WhoWuddaThunk0 -
Job/Blog Pages and rel=canonical
Hi, I know there are several questions and articles concerning the rel=canonical on SEOmoz, but I didn't find the answer I was looking for... We have some job pages, URLs are: /jobs and then jobs/2, jobs/3 etc.. Our blog pages follow the same: /blog, /blog2, /blog/3... Our CMS is self-produced, and every job/blog-page has the same title tag. According to SEOmoz (and the Webmaster Tools), we have a lots of duplicate title tags because of this problem. If we put the rel=canonical on each page's source code, the title tag problem will be solved for google, right? Because they will just display the /job and /blog main page. That would be great because we dont want 40 blog pages in the index. My concern (a stupid question, but I am not sure): if we put the rel=canonical on the pages, does google crawl them and index our job links? We want to keep our rankings for our job offers on pages 2-xxx. More simple: will we find our job offers on jobs/2, jobs/3... in google, if these pages have the rel=canonical on them? AND ONE MORE: does the SEOmoz bot also follow the rel=canonical and then reduce the number of duplicate title-tags in the campaigns??? Thanx........
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Do user metrics really mean anything?
This is a serious question, I'd also like some advice on my experience so far with the Panda. One of my websites, http://goo.gl/tFBA4 was hit on January 19th, it wasn't a massive hit, but took us from 25,000 to 21,000 uniques per day. It survived Panda completely prior. The only thing that had changed, was an upgrade in the CMS, which caused a lot of duplicate content, i.e 56 copies of the homepage, under various URLs. These were all indexed in Google. I've heard varying views, as to whether this could trigger Panda, I believe so, but i'd appreciate your thoughts on it. There was also the above the fold update on the 19th, but we have 1 ad MAX on each page, most pages have none. I hate even having to have 1 ad. I think we can safely assume it was Panda that did the damage. Jan 18th was the first Panda refresh, since we upgraded our CMS in mid-late December. As it was nothing more than a refresh, I feel it's safe to assume, that the website was hit, due to something that had changed on the website, between the Jan 18th refresh and the one previous. So, aside from fixing the bugs in the CMS, I felt now was a good time to put a massive focus on user metrics, I worked hard and continuing to spend a lot of time, improving them. Reduced bounce rate from 50% to 30% (extremely low in the niche) Average page views from 7 to 12 Average time on site from 5 to almost 8 minutes Plus created a mobile optimised version of the site Page loading speeds slashed. Not only did the above improvements have no positive effect, traffic continued to slide and we're now close to a massive 40% loss. Btw I realise neither mobile site nor page loading speeds are user metrics. I fully appreciate that my website is image heavy and thin on text, but that is an industry wide 'issue'. It's not an issue to my users, so it shouldn't be an issue to Google. Unlike our competitors, we actively encourage our users to add descriptions to their content and provide guidelines, to assit them in doing so. We have a strong relationship with our artists, as we listen to their needs and develop the website accordingly. Most of the results in the SERPs, contain content taken from my website, without my permission or permission of the artist. Rarely do they give any credit. If user metrics are so important, why on earth has my traffic continued to slide? Do you have any advice for me, on how I can further improve my chances of recovering from this? Fortunately, despite my artists download numbers being slashed in half, they've stuck by me and the website, which speaks volumes.
Technical SEO | | seo-wanna-bs0 -
Canonicals for Real Estate
A real estate site has a landing page for a particular zip code: site.com/zip/99999 On this page, there are links which add arguments to the URL, resulting in structures like this: site.com/zip/99999?maxprice=1000000&maxbeds=3 My question is on using a canonical URL for the pages with arguments. These pages may have lots of duplicate content, so should I direct search engines back to the base URL for the search? (site.com/zip/99999) A side note is that these pages with arguments could have no listings returned (no listings found) or could come back with listings (then it wouldn't be duplicate), but that can change on a day to day basis.
Technical SEO | | SteveCastaneda0 -
Home Page Canonical Question
I have an online store through hosting service Volusion. I have asked them about this and was told that this is normal. I would like to confirm this with you guys because I'm not convinced of the quality of their customer service and I'm not an expert. When I check Analytics the landing page that is visited most often is www....../default.asp and the second most visited is www........./ . These are, of course, both my home page. Volusion has radio button that allows the admin to "enable canonical links", which I have enabled, and they told me that it is normal to see this on google analytics regardless. When I type in either of those addreses, the homepage comes up as the address that I typed. In other words it doesn't redirect so that it is always the same. Am I right to be concerned about this?
Technical SEO | | berglin0
