Rel Canonical question
-
Hi:
I got a report indication 17 rel canonical notices. What does this mean in simple language and how do i go about fixing things?
-
Thanks guys!
-
Also, it's just a notice, not a warning or error. More of a "hey, this is here and make sure everything looks OK" type of thing.
-
Did you not add these yourself? It is a single line of code on the pages of your site:
If the rel=canonical is exactly the same as the URL of the page it is one then don't panic everything is fine :). If the URL in the rel=canonical tag is different than the URL of the page it is on, you may need to change it. Rel=canonical means, in as simple language as I can put it:
Google, Bing, or Whoever shows up to your page. Rel=canonical says,"Hey! Google, Bing, or Whoever! I'd prefer it if you would look at this other page as the "definitive" version of this content." And then rel=canonical points the search engine to the other page. After this, the non-"canonical" page should drop out of the search results.
This is useful when:
1. You have two pages with very similar or duplicate content that you want users to be able to navigate to, but that you don't want Google to see as duplicate (they get very angry about that now). These could be on one domain, or on two different website that you run.
2. You have URLs that are dynamically generated, or have a lot of query strings (e.g., ?shoes=red), and you don't want Google to think that you are duplicating content.
3. Someone else takes your content and tries to pass it off as their own.
Many people (myself included) feel that you should have "self-serving" rel=canonical on every page of your site, where the URL is the same as the page it is on. This helps with number 3, since you are automatically telling Google "Hey, THIS is the definitive version" before anyone else has the chance to.
If the rel=canonical tags are pointing to pages that they shouldn't be pointing to, you just need to delete that one line of code.
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
-
302 Redirect Question
After running a site crawl. I found two 302 redirects. The two redirects go from: site.com to www.site.com & site.com/products to www.site.com/products How do I fix the 302 redirect and change it to a 301 redirect? I have no clue where to start. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Ryan_1320 -
Newby question about 301 redericts
I work for a design firm who has been updating a website for a client. In addition to a new look, we've consolidated redundant pages for a more streamlined site. My question is this: when I have replaced 3 somewhat redundant pages on the old site with 1 page on the new site, should I 301 redirect all the former pages to the one new page. I know this question is beyond basic but I'm pretty new to SEO, so be gentle.
Technical SEO | | TheKatzMeow0 -
301 redirect homepage question
Hi If i have a homepage which is available at both www.homepage.com and www.homepage.com// should i 301 the // version to the first version. Im curious as to whether slashes are taking into consideration Thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | TheZenAgency0 -
301 redirect: canonical or non canonical?
Hi, Newbie alert! I need to set up 301 redirects for changed URLs on a database driven site that is to be redeveloped shortly. The current site uses canonical header tags. The new site will also use canonical tags. Should the 301 redirects map the canonical URL on the old site to the corresponding canonical for the new design . . . or should they map the non canonical database URLs old and new? Given that the purpose of canonicals is to indicate our preferred URL, then my guess is that's what I should use. However, how can I be sure that Google (for example) has indexed the canonical in every case? Thx in anticipation.
Technical SEO | | ztalk1120 -
Home page canonical issues
Hi, I've noticed I can access/view a client's site's home page using the following URL variations - http://example.com/
Technical SEO | | simon-145328
http://example/index.html
http://www.example.com/
http://www.example.com/index.html There's been no preference set in Google WMT but Google has indexed and features this URL - http://example.com/ However, just to complicate matters, the vast majority of external links point to the 'www' version. Obviously i would like to tidy this up and have asked the client's web development company if they can place 301 redirects on the domains we no longer want to work - I received this reply but I'm not sure whether this does take care of the duplicate issue - Understand what you're saying, but this shouldn't be an issue regarding SEO. Essentially all the domains listed are linking to the same index.html page hosted at 1 location My question is, do i need to place 301 redirects on the domains we don't want to work and do i stick with the 'non www' version Google has indexed and try to change the external links so they point to the 'non www' version or go with the 'www' version and set this as the preferred domain in Google WMT? My technical knowledge in this area is limited so any help would be most appreciated. Regards,
Simon.0 -
Duplication, pagination and the canonical
Hi all, and thank you in advance for your assistance. We have an issue of paginated pages being seen as duplicates by pro.moz crawlers. The paginated pages do have duplicated by content, but are not duplicates of each other. Rather they pull through a summary of the product descriptions from other landing pages on the site. I was planing to use rel=canonical to deal with them, however I am concerned as the paginated pages are not identical to each other, but do feature their own set of duplicate content! We have a similar issue with pages that are not paginated but feature tabs that alter the URL parameters like so: ?st=BlueWidgets ?st=RedSocks ?st=Offers These are being seen as duplicates of the main URL, and again all feature duplicate content pulled from elsewhere in the site, but are not duplicates of each other. Would a canonical tag be suitable here? Many Thanks
Technical SEO | | .egg0 -
Summarize your question.Sitemap blocking or not blocking that is the question?
Hi from wet & overcast wetherby UK 😞 Ones question is this... " Is the sitemap plus boxes blocking bots ie they cant pass on this page http://www.langleys.com/Site-Map.aspx " Its just the + boxes that concern me, i remeber reading somewherte javascript nav can be toxic. Is there a way to test javascript nav set ups and see if they block bots or not? Thanks in advance 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0 -
Canonical on ecommerce site
I have read tons of guides about canonical implementaiton but still am confused about how I should best use it. On my site with tens of thousands of urls and thousands of afiiliates and shopping networks sending traffic, is it smart to simply add the tag to every page and redirect to the same url. In doing this would that solve the problem of a single page having many different entrances with different tracking codes? Is there a better way to handle this? Also is there any potential problems with rolling out the tag to all pages if they are simply refrencing themselves in the tag? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | Gordian0