I need to know more clearance on rel=canonical usage than 301 redirects ?
-
Hi all SEOmozs,
As we all know purposes of rel=canonical , I have a query to ask that If we don't have any possibility to use 301 redirects on a domain , can it be really right to use rel=canonical on an old domain to let search engine to treat those all pages should be not priority where the domain we are being promoted in the market to list up instead that. I found this interesting Matt Cutts video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJK5Uloy76g where he has told or cleared the point very nicely, yes we can use it if there is no possibility in your older domain or pages. So here i am asking the same to know more detailed clarity on this so that i can be more confidence on it.
I have been seeing issues in my domains where old one domain comes than new domain why with new domain contents, and can it be really very good to bring new domain with **rel=canonical without using 301 redirect :
Old : kanin.com (leaving) New : kangarokanin.com (promoting)Where i might have not used yet the rel=canonical in old domain, will be going to use it soon , after finishing this discussion.**
Regards,
Teginder Ravi -
The thumbs up Dr. Pete,
You definitely explain that much better than I could. And completely agree once the 301 in place there should be nothing else associated with it.
Teginder
I thought I would send this link with a screenshot from Google searching for staplers Google I noticed in your screenshots you are logged in to Google I just wanted you to know if you're constantly searching for staplers and your URL Google will modify the search to suit what it thinks is your needs. Hence I did a very unscientific incognito check allowing Google to give me a less biased search result. to make it more useful high logged into SEM Rush and searched staplers and received what you can find inside the CVS file for the top 10 organic results. So you know this is what came up In the photographs is different from what SEM Rush and Google are telling me.
https://blueprintmarketing.sharefile.com/d/scdb1ed7e9464929b
The very best of luck with your new website.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zickell
-
The thumbs up Dr. Pete,
You definitely explain that much better than I could. And completely agree once the 301 in place there should be nothing else associated with it.
Teginder
I thought I would send this link with a screenshot from Google searching for staplers Google I noticed in your screenshots you are logged in to Google I just wanted you to know if you're constantly searching for staplers and your URL Google will modify the search to suit what it thinks is your needs. Hence I did a very unscientific incognito check allowing Google to give me a less biased search result. to make it more useful high logged into SEM Rush and searched staplers and received what you can find inside the CVS file for the top 10 organic results. So you know this is what came up In the photographs is different from what SEM Rush and Google are telling me.
https://blueprintmarketing.sharefile.com/d/scdb1ed7e9464929b
The very best of luck with your new website.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zickell
-
Thanks Dr. Pete for lighting more on this comparing with 301 redirects & rel tags.
-
One thing that I almost always see overlooked in these discussion - 301 and canonical have totally different impacts on the visitors to your site. A 301 will take the visitor to the new site, whereas a canonical won't. If you're really trying to phase out the old domain, canonicals could be self-defeating, because people won't know the site has moved and they'll still bookmark, tweet, link to, etc. the old URLs.
Keep in mind, too, that cross-domain canonicals are at Google's discretion. While they often work, and can pass PageRank, they're sometimes ignored. The are cases where canonicals may be safer, such as if you suspect the old domain carries a penalty. For a full site move, though, I'd almost always go with 301s.
-
Hi Teginder, When you apply the 301 Redirect to the new webpage Google will actually no longer index it it will believe that it has just become a part of the pages just pointed at meaning you literally could set the rel tags but that's all you'd have to do you definitely do not need to worry about. I hope I was of help Sincerely , Thomas Zickell
-
I want to know one more thing that i am going to use and bring new domain pages with using rel=canonical tags where there is no possibility of 301 redirect use WITH , I just want to know that Will Google not to index the pages where i will use noindex and get to know that the same page has been letting to move new primary versions of the page to crawl and index them. Regards, Teginder Ravi
-
prior to changing domains you want to do exactly this
with rel=canonical without using 301 redirect :
Old : kanin.com (leaving) New : kangarokanin.com (promoting)** that will get Google on the same track but you really don't want take long before implementing the 301 redirect maybe 24 hours.**
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
-
Unsolved Temporary redirect from 302 to 301 for PNG File?
#302HTTP #temporaryredirect
Technical SEO | | Damian_Ed 0
Hi everyone, Recently I have faced a crawl issue with my media images on website. For example this page url https://intreface.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Horion-screen-side-2.png has 302 HTTP Status and the recommendation is to change it 301. I have read the article on temporary redirections here:
https://moz.com/learn/seo/redirection?_ga=2.45324708.1293586627.1702571936-916254120.1702571936
but its not written here how to redirect in my HTML 1 image url not the landing page.
Screenshot 2023-12-15 at 11.02.40.png
I have messaged to MOZ Support but they recommended to go for the MOZ Community!
Screenshot 2023-12-15 at 11.06.02.png Could you assist me wit this issue please? I can reach HTTML of the necessary page and change what I need for permanent redirection but firstly I need to understand how to do that correctly.0 -
Do you need a canonical tag for search and filter pages?
Hi Moz Community, We've been implementing new canonical tags for our category pages but I have a question about pages that are found via search and our filtering options. Would we still need a canonical tag for pages that show up in search + a filter option if it only lists one page of items? Example below. www.uncommongoods.com/search.html/find/?q=dog&exclusive=1 Thanks!
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Rel-canonical and meta data
Hey Mozzers, Help please. I am migrating content for a new website (1000's of pages) and am using the canonical tag on a number of pages. For the pages which I am asking Google not to recognise / index as the master version, and in the interests of time do I need to take the time to fill in the meta <title><description> etc each time?</p> <p>Ben</p></title>
Technical SEO | | Bendall0 -
Why are my 301 redirects and duplicate pages (with canonicals) still showing up as duplicates in Webmaster Tools?
My guess is that in time Google will realize that my duplicate content is not actually duplicate content, but in the meantime I'd like to get your guys feedback. The reporting in Webmaster Tools looks something like this. Duplicates /url1.html /url2.html /url3.html /category/product/url.html /category2/product/url.html url3.html is the true canonical page in the list above._ url1.html,_ and url2.html are old URLs that 301 to url3.html. So, it seems my bases are covered there. _/category/product/url.html _and _/category2/product/url.html _ do not redirect. They are the same page as url3.html. Each of the category URLs has a canonical URL of url3.html in the header. So, it seems my bases are covered there as well. Can I expect Google to pick up on this? Why wouldn't it understand this already?
Technical SEO | | bearpaw0 -
301 redirect of a subdirectory
Hello! I am working on a website with the following structure: example.com/sub1/sub2/sub3. The page "example.com/sub1" does not exist (I know this is not the optimal architecture to have this be a nonexistent page). But someone might type that address, so I would like it to redirect it to example.com/sub1/sub2/sub3. I tried the following redirect: redirect 301 /sub1 http://example.com/sub1/sub2/sub3. But with this redirect in place, if I go to example.com/sub1, I get redirected to example.com/sub1/sub2/sub3/sub2/sub3 (the redirect just inserts extra subdirectories). If someone types "example.com/sub1" into a browser, I would "example.com/sub1/sub2/sub3" to come up. Is this possible? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | nyc-seo0 -
Rel canonical question
Hi, I have an e-commerce site hosted on Volusion currently the rel canonical link for the homepage points to www.store.com/default.asp. I spoke with the Volusion support people and they told me that whether the canonical link points to store.com/default.asp or store.com does not really matter as long as there is a canonical version. I thought this sounded odd, so looked at other websites hosted on volusion and some sites canonicalize to default.asp and others .com. (volusion.com canonicalizes to .com fwiw). The question is...I have a majority of my external links going to www.store.com , and since that page has default.asp as it canonical version, am I losing link juice from those incoming links? If so, should I change the canonical link? If I do what are the potential issues/penalties? Hopefully this question makes sense and thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | IOSC0 -
Rel Canonical for Miva Merchant
Due to necessary pagination on the site that sells thousands of products, and due to products being assigned to more than one category in the Miva Merchant store, we have been battling duplicate content, and Meta tag issues. I asked lot of questions on the Miva forum on how to use rel canonical in Miva, and got this script below to use. It was supposed to solve all of our problems, but now it seems that every page of the site is under Rel Canonical Notices in the Crawl Diagnostics. I am not sure I am reading the Notices correctly, and if we achieved what we want or not. Here is an example of one listing: URL: http://www.domain.com/ABUS.html
Technical SEO | | 2CDevGroup
Tag Value: http://www.domain.com/
Page Authority: 28
Linking Root Domains: 1 | | | | |0 -
Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
When using the On page report card I get a critical error on Rel Canonical Im not sure if I have understood this right but I think that my problem is that I own a Norwegian Domain name which is www.danske-båten.no This domain works great in norwegian, but I get problems with english (foreign) browsers. My english domain name is http://www.danske-båten.no. When you buy a domain name with the letter Å you get a non norwegian domain name as well. (dont quite get the tecnical aspect of it) Så when I publish a page (using wordpress if that means anything) I get this message: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://www.danske-båten.no/ferge-oslo-københavn/"</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.</dd> <dd>So What to do to fix this?
Technical SEO | | stlastla
</dd> </dl>0
