Rel canonical tag back to the same page the tag is on?
-
Very simple,
Why would a website (and I have seen tons doing this) link the rel canonical tag back to the same page the tag is on?
Example: somepage.htm has a canonical tag linking to somepage.htm
I thought the idea of this tag was to tell google if 2 pages are similar, this page is the original, and it's this page which should be indexed and the page with the tag on should pass all PR to the original.
Maybe im wrong and someone can help me out to understand this.
-
For all practical purposes, Google doesn't seem to index pages where it recognizes the canonical as legitimate. You won't find them in a "site:" query, "cache:" command, etc. Google may call that a "filter", but once it's reached that point, the URL is as good as de-indexed. There may be subtle, technical distinctions, but the end result is virtually the same.
-
Not quite. Canonical (per Matt Cutts) is considered a hint as to what the real page is. It doesn't stop the duplicate page from being crawled or indexed (a page that isn't indexed will not show up anywhere in Google for any query), it prevents the duplicate page from winning the duplicate race (i.e. if you don't pick a winner, Google will pick one for you).
-
Thanks Tom (and everyone else for the replies),
So if someone linked to a page with a querystring Google wouldn't index that page because the canonical tag is pointing to a url which doesn't have that query in?
I like the scraped part as well, that in itself makes it worth while.
-
Newegg.com uses this because they have affiliates, searches and numerous other things that affect their query strings.
Remember that ANY change to the query string is seen as a new page. So
domain.com?page=a&link=1
domain.com?page=a&link=2are considered separate pages, even if they return the same content.
Canonical is used to determine which duplicate page "wins" the index race. All other versions are considered duplicate and, thus, devalued.
-
There's a couple of reasons why people might want to do this (and why I do with all my websites)
First of all, the page/site might be scraped and replicated by a bot, particularly if it's an authority domain. Having your canonicals in place to begin with will help reduce the chance of your content being seen as duplicate, should a bot scrape your site.
Another reason would be if a website might generate any additional versions of the page through queries, eg www.domain.com/page.php?query2 - Having a self referring canonical will also tell Google that you want to rank the URL without any other queries, which can help prevent any of those queries appearing in the Google index and/or SERPs.
-
Hi,
I am not an expert, so please do not take my answer very seriously. What you mention, of making a canonical tag pointing to the same URL, looks fine. In my understanding, canonical tags were created to tell the search engines that a page is the right one, even if the system you are using creates address that could look like duplicate content. For example, if you are using a Content Management System like wordpress or Joomla, you could have the following:
-
http://domain.com/date/month/page1 and so on.
Search engines (again, I am not sure, I am just a newbee), could think all this pages are duplicate content, and could penalize you for this. But if you indicate with the canonical tag that the right url is http://domain.com/page1, then you are safe.
I hope somebody with more experience could help you better,
Best Regards,
Daniel
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
-
Page grader says we are keyword stuffing but we arn't. Page source shows different story.
Hi community! We have just run a page grader for the keyword 'LED Bulbs' on whichledlight.com and it comes up that we are keyword stuffing! However, a brief look at the source for the homepage and there's only 6 times that LED Bulbs pops up. We do have the non plural version of the word 'LED Bulb' on the page 27 times.. do we think that would contribute to the keyword stuffing? Thanks!!
On-Page Optimization | | TrueluxGroup0 -
Noindex pages being indexed
Hi all Wondering if anyone could offer a pointer on a problem i am having please. I am developing an affiliate store and to prevent problems with duplicate content I have added name="robots" content="NOINDEX,FOLLOW" /> to all the product pages to avoid google penalties. However, Google appears to be indexing product pages. When I do a site: search I see a few hundred product pages in the engine. This is odd as the site has always had noindex on these pages. Even viewing the cache of the indexed page shows the noindex meta tag to be in place. I'm at a loss as to why these pages are being indexed and could do with removing them asap to stop any penalties on the site. Many thanks for any help.
On-Page Optimization | | carl_daedricdigital0 -
Page architecture
We have some good content on our site, particularly relating to UK employment law. One section on unfair dismissal is split into 9 pages - there is a fair amount of legal detail. The question is whether we should combine it all into one "mother of all unfair dismissal" page just to satisfy the Google monster or keep in as it is. Some of the individual pages rank on page 1 already. If we change the architecture are 301 redirects the best way to handle the changing urls? The other more important issue is whether it is easier to read it all on one page or split it. Keeping G happy may not actually keep our users happy. As the content is quite dense we want to ensure we don't overload people. Any thoughts appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | dexm100 -
Autogenerated pages
My main product is database conversion software. As it supports tons of databases, it's fairly easy to generate thousands of landing pages simply by variating source/target database names, connection information etc. In fact, I autogenerated almost 25k pages that way. As I didn't want to jeopardize my main site, I placed all that content to a new microsite (www.fullconvert.com) which had no history and no inbound links. Results were nice - site is live two months and in second month already had 1300 visitors. Now, my question is - should I create the same thing on my (old and rather authoritative) main site www.spectralcore.com? I could use a different template to avoid duplicate content. Of course, my main concern is being penalized by Google. In my opinion, this autogenerated content is fine because it provides (tons of) laser-focused landing pages, so visitors will instantly recognize they found what they're looking for. But Google might disagree! What do you think? Is there a danger in trying to leverage authority of my main site in adding 20k+ autogenerated pages with inbound no links to them?
On-Page Optimization | | metadata0 -
Faq page
We are redoing our faq page and we were trying to decide on the best format. 1. Create each question on a separate page 2. Create one page with all the question and have the questions expand 3. Create different faq category pages (like 4) and divide the questions between them From my perspective #1 seems the best ---. you can create hyper relevant content for the user and optimize each question really well Any experience with this?
On-Page Optimization | | Morris770 -
Canonical links
My website is relatively new, January. We climbed steadily to 6th for our search term then overnight rocketed to 1st. This only lasted a week and have been stuck at 9th ever since. When I use the SEO Moz tools our site should theoretically be top...I only joined today btw. Anyway in Google webmaster tools I noticed it said I had duplicate title tags, when I checked to see what the pages were- it was my home page! Google also seems to have cached two versions of our homepage, the root domain and the Default.aspx page. Now I have fixed this canonical linking issue today (using canonical link tag and 301s) so time will tell but has anyone got any first hand experience of this issue? Was it a big factor? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | SplashBacksNI0 -
Should I use a Page Name variable after the ? for a dynamic web page
I'm converting for static to dynamic web pages. It appears that the page name is used for page ranking in the search engines. Will adding a Page Name variable help to increase our SEO. For example aspecialgift.com/subcat.php?PageName=GiftPage&ProductID=ABCDE. Does the page name variable make a difference?
On-Page Optimization | | NCBob0 -
Rel="canonical"
Can you tell me if we've implemented rel="canonical" properly? We want this to be our primary: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- while this would be duplicate and refer robots back to the URL above: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6054284 We've added the following to both pages: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- "/> Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | jonesatl0