Are my canonical re directs working?
-
Buonjourno from Wetherby UK
Ive been battlling sometime to get this site http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk to rank for term Right To Manage. Amongst other tactics ive set up a canonical
- http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/about/right-to-manage.aspx * - Canonical version
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/how-we-care-for-you/right-to-manage.aspx
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/what-our-customers-say/right-to-manage.aspx
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/ -
But has this canonical redirect feature worked? The reason i doubt it is i notice when i enter a page http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/what-our-customers-say/right-to-manage.aspx which has the below code in place:
rell="canonical" href="http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/About/right-to-manage.aspx/" />
It does not jump to http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/about/right-to-manage.aspx
So my question is...
"is the canonical redirect working or not & waht is the best way / tool for diagnosing a canonical error"
Grazie tanto,
David -
You're welcome David
Hope some of that helped.
Andy
-
Hi Andy,
thank you fir taking time out to look at this again
Ive 301 redirect the rogue urls and the souble ll in rel was a typo i passed into my post & mercifully wasnt on the live site.Thanks again,
David
-
If you pulled that code off your page, you have spelt 'rel' wrong.
But as I already said, rel canonical is not a redirect - a 301 is a redirect. Rel canonical is a suggestion to Google with a preferred page meant for those times when - but if they look at what you are doing, you have very little chance of that working as it stands.
Are you not able to re-write the duplicate content or remove it altogether? Perhaps even think about no-indexing those pages.
Andy
-
Hi Andy,
Yes i know its duplicate conent thats why i added the canonical re directs.
So my question is...
"is the canonical redirect working or not & waht is the best way / tool for diagnosing a canonical error"
Thanks,
David
-
Hi Andy,
Yes i know its duplicate conent thats why i added the canonical re directs.
So my question is...
"is the canonical redirect working or not & waht is the best way / tool for diagnosing a canonical error"
Thanks,
David
-
Just to ad ive just decided to ad 301 redirects to bury this problem hopefully permanently
-
A rel=canonical is only a suggestion to Google for which page is the preferred one to deliver the content, so there is never any guarantee that they will deliver content.
However, what I see are 3 pages of identical content - you shouldn't be too surprised to hear that this is duplication and as such, very unlikely that Google is going to rank those pages at all.
I would consider a change of tact that includes removing the duplicate content.
Andy
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
-
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 -
Please take a look at my canonical tag - is it written right?
Hi there! I just changed the preferred domain settings from http://example.com to http://www.example.com and received a recommended action from Google: "Ensure that you specify the new host as canonical in all page links or sitemaps." Could you please let me know if "the new host" is equal to "canonical" and if I have to include this tag into every page of my website ? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | kirupa0 -
Rel=Canonical for filter pages
Hi folks, I have a bit of a dilemma that I'd appreciate some advice on. We'll just use the solid wood flooring of our website as an example in this case. We use the rel=canonical tag on the solid wood flooring listings pages where the listings get sorted alphabetically, by price etc.
Technical SEO | | LukeyB30
e.g. http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/?orderBy=highestprice uses the canonical tag to point to http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/ as the main page. However, we also uses filters on our site which allows users to filter their search by more specific product features e.g.
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm/
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/natural-lacquered/ We don't use the canonical tag on these pages because they are great long-tail keyword targeted pages so I want them to rank for phrases like "18mm solid wood flooring". But, in not using the canonical tag, I'm finding google is getting confused and ranking the wrong page as the filters mean there is a huge number of possible URLs for a given list of products. For example, Google ranks this page for the phrase "18mm solid wood flooring" http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm,116mm/ This is no good. This is a combination of two filters and so the listings are very refined, so if someone types the above phrase into Google and lands on this page their first reaction will be "there are not many products here". Google should be ranking the page with only the 18mm filter applied: http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm How would you recommend I go about rectifying this situation?
Thanks, Luke0 -
When to re-submit for reconsideration?
Hi! We received a manual penalty notice. We had an SEO company a couple of years ago build some links for us on blogs. Currently we have only about 95 of these links which are pretty easily identifiable by the anchor text used and the blogs or directories they originate from. So far, we have seen about 35 of those removed and have made 2 contacts to each one via removeem.com. So, how many contacts do you think need to be made before submitting a reconsideration request? Is 2 enough? Also, should we use the disavow tool on these remaining 65 links? Every one of the remaining links is from either a filipino blog page or a random article directory. Finally, do you think we are still getting juice from these links? i.e. if we do remove or disavow these anchor text links are we actually going to see a negative impact? Thanks for your help and answers!! Craig
Technical SEO | | TheCraig0 -
Home page canonical issues
I think I’ve got a canonical issue with a client’s site that I’m having problems with I’ve noticed in their analytics that they receive traffic from themselves. I’ve used ‘ rel canonical’ throughout the site to avoid any dup issues and I have 301’ed every other variation of the home page I can think of. I don’t have full access to the back end of the host to control any of the iis as it’s an asp site. They seem to be getting traffic from their site under the URL of, example.com I’ve 301 redirected www.example.com/home.asp www.example.com/default.asp www.example.com/index.asp to www.example.com And 'rel canonical' the home page to www.example.com but still seem to be having the same problem any ideas? Thanks
Technical SEO | | FarkyRafiq0 -
How to re-claim Google Places listing?
I have 2 new clients whose Google Places pages were claimed & edited by other SEO companies. No info is available to me on the Google Accounts used to claim them. Both Places listings need significant edits. Is there a way to re-claim these listings with new Google Accounts, in order to edit/optimize them? Or, do I have to create new Places listings and then ask Google to delete the old ones? This situation must be occurring every day, it seems....
Technical SEO | | DonB1 -
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 -
Using the Canonical Tag
Hi, I have an issue that can be solve with a canonical tag, but I am not sure yet, we are developing a page full of statistics, like this: www.url.com/stats/ But filled with hundreds of stats, so users can come and select only the stats they want to see and share with their friends, so it becomes like a new page with their slected stats: www.url.com/stats/?id=mystats The problems I see on this is: All pages will be have a part of the content from the main page 1) and many of them will be exactly the same, so: duplicate content. My idea was to add the canonical tag of "www.url.com/stats/" to all pages, similar as how Rand does it here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps But I am not sure of this solution because the content is not exactly the same, page 2) will only have a part of the content that page 1) has, and in some cases just a very small part. Is the canonical tag useful in this case? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | andresgmontero0
