See screenshot: Is this an example of Canonical issue or am I making an error in judgement?
-
Hi Mozzers.
Please see the constructed screen grab from Open site explorer.
Do I have canonical Errors with this client?
Thanks!
-
Thanks Alan,
I stopped to think because of the canonical tag that everybody now seems to be using for everything everywhere.
I like the 301 because I have total control and the operation happens on my server. (I don't have to worry about search engines getting flaky or treating the canonical differently at some date in the future.) So my gut and brain said use the 301... but I was ready for someone to argue for the canonical.
-
Thanks EGOL,
I am not the developer, (or A developer) but I know it is not hard to fix (301). The question remains, is this a canonical issue? How does something like this happen? Thanks E.
-
I wouldn't even pause to think. I'd just immediately do the 301 redirect. The fact that both versions are reporting as many links as they do is an indicator of serious link dilution.
-
I think that I would do a 301 redirect of domain.com to www.domain.com.
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
-
How to deal with rel=canonical when using POST parameters
Hi there,
On-Page Optimization | | mjk26
I currently have a number of URLs throughout my site of the form: https://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/o2-academy-islington-hotels/256133#checkin_4-21-2024&checkout_4-22-2024&rooms_1&guests_2&artistid_15878:256133 This sends the user through to a page showing hotels near the O2 Academy Islington. Once the page loads, my code looks at the parameters specified in the # part of the URL, and uses them to fill in a form, before submitting the form as a POST. This basically reloads the page, but checks the availability of the hotels first, and therefore returns slightly different content to the "canonical" version of this page (which simply lists the hotels before any availability checks done). Until now, I've marked the page that has had availability checks as noindex,follow. But because the form was submitted with POST parameters, the URL looks exactly like the canonical one. So the two URLs are identical, but due to POST parameters, the content is slightly different. Does that make sense? My question is, should both versions of this page be marked as index,follow? Thanks
Mike0 -
Missing canonical tag error - office pages
Moz is throwing an error for our office pages (10 office pages in the format /office/location-1; /office/location-2 etc) but the content is different. How should we handle the canonical tag? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | AztekMedia0 -
Using Canonical Tags on Every Page
I'm doing competitive research and noticed that one of our competitors (who outranks us) uses canonical tags on every page on their site. The canonical tags reference the page they are on. For example. www.competitor.com/product has a canonical tag of www.competitor.com/product. Does anyone use this practice? It seems strange to me. Thank you, Kristen
On-Page Optimization | | Ksink0 -
Is there a tool that I can use to scrape and see metatags?
Looking for a tool that allows me to scrape the websites off a page listing of Google and output a spreadsheet with the websites and their related meta-tag details (mainly title tag). Is there a tool out there that can conveniently allow me to do this?
On-Page Optimization | | Gavo0 -
"Issue: Duplicate Page Content " in Crawl Diagnostics - but these pages are noindex
Saw an issue back in 2011 about this and I'm experiencing the same issue. http://moz.com/community/q/issue-duplicate-page-content-in-crawl-diagnostics-but-these-pages-are-noindex We have pages that are meta-tagged as no-everything for bots but are being reported as duplicate. Any suggestions on how to exclude them from the Moz bot?
On-Page Optimization | | Deb_VHB0 -
404 errors on page urls that don't even exist
The Seomoz crawler found 404error of pages dont even exist. Ho can that be possible?? Pages like: URL: http://www.yoxo.it/catalog/seo_sitemap/category/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/falli/
On-Page Optimization | | yoxo0 -
Is reported duplication on the pages or their canonical pages?
There are several sections getting flagged for duplication on one of our sites: http://mysite.com/section-1/?something=X&confirmed=true
On-Page Optimization | | Safelincs
http://mysite.com/section-2/?something=X&confirmed=true
http://mysite.com/section-3/?something=X&confirmed=true Each of the above are showing as having duplicates of the other sections. Indeed, these pages are exactly the same (it's just an SMS confirmation page you enter your code in), however, they all have canonical links back to the section (without the query string), i.e. section-1, section-2 and section-3 respectively. These three sections have unique content and aren't flagged up for duplications themselves, so my questions are: Are the pages with the query strings the duplicates, and if so why are the canonical links being ignored? or Are the canonical pages without the query strings the duplicates, and if so why don't they appear as URLs in their own right in the duplicate content report? I am guessing it's the former, but I can't figure out why it would ignore the canonical links. Any ideas? Thanks0 -
Mozbar # issue
Hi, When viewed through the Mozbar page analysis tool my Joomla site is always displaying a bullet point and space character before the site. Is this likely to effect search engine reading of my ? www.clearvisas.com - is the site. Please have look and let me know what you think. If you are a Joomla expert your feedback on my website and this issue will be really welcome. Thanks, Fuad
On-Page Optimization | | Fuad_YK0