Disappearing Rel=Canonical Code
-
Hi,
I've been getting a lot of rel=canonical warnings from seomoz. I went into the original pages and pasted in plain text the following code:
link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/blog/my-awesome-blog-post"<
(the > are reversed).
After a few crawls I couldn't see any effect from posting the code. When I went and checked again, it didn't stay in the wysiwyg editor. It disappeared!
We are using Drupal 6. Could someone tell me what code I should be pasting?
Thanks!
-
Hi Keri,
Thanks for the message! We are getting double content warnings so I thought that the absence of a rel=canonical script was causing the double content warning. Appreciate the confirmation - that saved a TON of time.
Cheers!
-
Hi! Those are actually rel=canonical notices, not warnings. It's a note to let you know that they are there and to make sure everything looks OK, not that there's something wrong.
-
I am glad :}
cheers
-
Hi Ayaz,
How odd! I was able to control F and find the rel=canonical link in the page source. I wonder why it doesn't show up in wysiwyg??
Thanks for that - very, very helpful!
-
You can do that by loading the page in your browser, right click somewhere and view source. or you can provide the link here and i can take a quick look for you.
-
Hi Ayaz,
That was a great idea to clear the cache. Unfortunately it didn't work.
I'm actually not sure how to verify on the page source code...
Thanks!
-
Hi, have you verified in the page's source code if the canonical code is showing up, or if you are using any sort of cache system, its wise to clear the cache and check agian.
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
-
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
Rel Conical - Mobile page
I have two pages that have essentially the same content, same page title etc. however one is the mobile version of the other. Is it appropriate to use the rel canonical tag with these two pages? So the pages are: www.example.com/product www.example.com/mobile/product If rel canonical is not appropriate what, if anything should I do?
On-Page Optimization | | cbarron0 -
Google Map Marker not showing up when using HTML Embed Code
Hi community, For several clients, when embedding the Google Maps, the Marker DOES NOT appear. I am copying straight from Google Maps, it appears fine in Google Maps. Is there HTML I can add or is there something wrong with the map marker to begin with? These are verified listings. Help! Thank you! Priscilla
On-Page Optimization | | FullMedia900 -
Ref = Canonical
Does it make sense to use the Canonical statement on pages on your web site that already have the correct URL. Or, should I ask, "Does it do any harm?"
On-Page Optimization | | JustInsulation0 -
301, Canonical, and Page Authority
I have been trying to find an answer to this question for awhile now but I am having trouble. I have a clients site that I need to redirect and Canonical the pages to correct duplicate content issues and title tags however, the issue with this client is that some of the www. pages have a higher PA than non-www and the reverse is true. I am wondering if there is an issue with chasing the PA to get the highest PA per page (even if this means the site is going to be a mix of www. and non-www. pages)? I am extremely new to SEO so I apologize ahead of time if I missed this in the forum.
On-Page Optimization | | Highline_Ideas0 -
Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Hello, in on page report card , for a kyeword: armadi portafucili blindati URL: http://www.bighunter.net/shop/searchresult.seam?codiceSettoreSel=CACCIA&codiceCategoriaSel=Armadi Blindati&codiceSottoCategoriaSel=Linea Legno DeLuxe&codiceMarcaSel=SILMEC i have a Critical Factor that don't undestand. It 's not ok "appropiate Use of Rel Canoncal, but in my page i have <link href="http://www.bighunter.net/shop/searchresult.seam?codiceSettoreSel=CACCIA&codiceCategoriaSel=Armadi Blindati&codiceSottoCategoriaSel=Linea Legno DeLuxe&codiceMarcaSel=SILMEC" rel="canonical"> and the link is the same of the url . I don't undestand where is the problem . Who can help me? Best Regards Luca
On-Page Optimization | | lbecarelli0 -
Correct use of Canonical link vs 301 redirect
Hi All, Seeking yet more advice. SEOMOZ tools have told me I have duplicate content on one of my sites and I am keen to clean this up. I am not to familiar with the following so thought I would ask. The duplicate content is shown on : www.mysite.com www.mysite.com/index.html Obviously I only see index.html when I check the code so what is the best method of resolving the duplicate content, Canonical or 301? Can you give me an example 🙂 Thanks all
On-Page Optimization | | wedmonds0 -
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