Rel canonical confusion
-
I have 172 pages on my site coming up as having a rel canoncial tag
This is not something I've added myself so I think it must either be part of wordpress or part of a plug in I'm using . ALL in One SEO?
They have come up as blue warning so not sure if it's a big deal, or what i need to do to fix it.
Thanks
Kate
-
Having rel=canonical is recommended for all pages of your website, even if it's the original version. It's because for example if your url is:
and you have that set as canonical on the page, and someone references to your page as
http://domain.com/url?ref=feed
The canonical URL will still be http://domain.com/url and hence won't count as duplicate pages.
-
Hi Neil
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. And for checking that everything is working fine re rel canonical thingies on my site.
I really appreciate it - award yourself 20 good deed points for today.
Best wishes,
Kate -
Hi Kate - this is nothing to worry about.
Rel Canonicals are generally shown on the SEOmoz PRO dashboard as an alert/heads up, rather than a direct warning. There is, of course, potential for real damage if they're configured incorrectly, but in your case it appears the Wordpress SEO plugin you're using is doing fine.
Your canonical URLs are showing as what you most likely would expect and want them to be, the post permalinks or the category URLs.
I experimented and changed some of the letters in the URLs to uppercase, to check for problems. Whilst the URLs still resolved with uppercase characters and didn't 301 redirect to lowercase (which would generally considered best practice), the Rel canonical URLs set remained the lowercase version even with mixed case in the browser bar - this is, again, exactly how you would want it to behave.
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
-
What could cause Google to not honor canonical URLs?
I have a strange situation on a website, when I do a Google query of site:example.com all the top indexed results appear to be queries that users can perform on the website. So any random term the user searches for on the website for some reason is causing the search result page to get indexed - like example.com/search/query/random-keywords However, the search results page has a canonical tag on it that points to example.com/search, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything. Any thoughts or ideas why this could be happening?
Technical SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Change URL or use Canonicals and Redirects?
We just completed a conclusive a/b test on a client's landing page. The new page saw a 30% bump in conversions, yay! Now what? Option 1: Change the url of the new page to that of the old page, retire the old page. Option 2: Redirect the old page and anything that was pointing to it to the new page, make the new page the canonical. I'm afraid of option 1 because I think Google's WTF penalty will be a bit harsher than option 2, but I wanted to sanity check that here. Any thoughts or experienced advice would be very appreciated!
Technical SEO | | LindsayDayton0 -
Canonical issues using Screaming Frog and other tools?
In the Directives tab within Screaming Frog, can anyone tell me what the difference between "canonicalised", "canonical", and "no canonical" means? They're found in the filter box. I see the data but am not sure how to interpret them. Which one of these would I check to find canonical issues within a website? Are there any other easy ways to identify canonical issues?
Technical SEO | | Flock.Media0 -
Rel=canonical redirect form sign-up to homepage
hi guys, just an idea- in our product- TrackTest.eu we have couple of authoritative websites linking directly to our Sign-up page. Does it make sense to use rel=canonical on Sign-up page with pointing to the homepage so we will pass some link juice to homepage ? I understand that it is not a use how was canonical designed (it is not duplicated content) and don't want to screw anything. Thanks
Technical SEO | | tracktest.eu0 -
Is it appropriate to use canonical for a yearly post with similar content?
I've begun writing an annual review of local business directories. Post from 2012 is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-in-2012/ New 2014 post is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-2014/ Is this appropriate use? Next year the post will be similar, but different metrics reported and slightly different review. Side note: For some reason the post hasn't been indexed by Google yet. Usually new posts are indexed as soon as they are shared on social media.
Technical SEO | | ServiceCrowd_AU0 -
Canonical versus 301 for affilaite links
Affiliate links for the Volusion ecommerce shops are of the form mydomain.com/?Click=XX where XX is the affiliate ID. Volusion uses rel=canonical to redirect the affiliate links to mydomain.com. Is this a good solution? I used iDevAffiliate for another online store, and their solution was to use 301 redirects to trip off the ? string. Comments? Best,
Technical SEO | | ChristopherGlaeser
Christopher0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Does Bing support cross-domain canonical tags?
We have heard Bing takes canonical tags as hints, but do they support cross-domain canonical tags? I don't think this has ever been discussed? Does anyone have an answer or insight? Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | bonnierSEO0