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
-
Rel=canonical on landing page question
Currently we have two versions of a category page on our site (listed below) Version A: www.example.com/category • lives only in the SERPS but does not live on our site navigation • has links • user experience is not the best Version B: www.example.com/category?view=all • lives in our site navigation • has a rel=canonical to version A • very few links and doesn’t appear in the SERPS • user experience is better than version A Because the user experience of version B is better than version A I want to take out the rel=canonical in version B to version A and instead put a rel=canonical to version B in version A. If I do this will version B show up in the SERPS eventually and replace version A? If so, how long do you think this would take? Will this essentially pass page rank from version A to version B
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Disavow questions
Pretty sure I know the answers to these but someone asked me to make absolutely sure so here goes, any opinions welcome: If i disavow a whole domain does it include all sub-domains on the domain also?- my answer is clearly yes. If i have network of links really bad linking to my website that are already nofollow but awful websites to be linked on, is it worth putting them in the disavow list anyway to basically tell Google literally no association? I know the whole point of disavow is to essentially nofollow the link. Opinions much appreciated, thank you guys.
Technical SEO | | tdigital0 -
Rel canonical between mirrored domains
Hi all & happy new near! I'm new to SEO and could do with a spot of advice: I have a site that has several domains that mirror it (not good, I know...) So www.site.com, www.site.edu.sg, www.othersite.com all serve up the same content. I was planning to use rel="canonical" to avoid the duplication but I have a concern: Currently several of these mirrors rank - one, the .com ranks #1 on local google search for some useful keywords. the .edu.sg also shows up as #9 for a dirrerent page. In some cases I have multiple mirrors showing up on a specific serp. I would LIKE to rel canonical everything to the local edu.sg domain since this is most representative of the fact that the site is for a school in Singapore but...
Technical SEO | | AlexSG
-The .com is listed in DMOZ (this used to be important) and none of the volunteers there ever respoded to requests to update it to the .edu.sg
-The .com ranks higher than the com.sg page for non-local search so I am guessing google has some kind of algorithm to mark down obviosly local domains in other geographic locations Any opinions on this? Should I rel canonical the .com to the .edu.sg or vice versa? I appreciate any advice or opinion before I pull the trigger and end up shooting myself in the foot! Best regards from Singapore!0 -
Implementation of rel="next" & rel="prev"
Hi All, I'm looking to implement rel="next" & rel="prev", so I've been looking for examples. I looked at the source code for the MOZ.com forum, if anyone one is going to do it properly MOZ are. I noticed that the rel="next" & rel="prev" tags have been implemented in the a href tags that link to the previous and next pages rather than in the head. I'm assuming this is fine with Google but in their documentation they state to put the tags in the . Does it matter? Neil.
Technical SEO | | NDAY0 -
Why am I getting rel= canonical?
I'm getting 14 rel=canonical tags on my site. Could someone offer me an insight as to this is happening? http://cool-invent.com Thanks, Lorraine
Technical SEO | | coolinvent0 -
Keyword density question.
For instance, if the keyword I'm targeting on a specific page is "New Orleans", the Keyword is everywhere it's supposed to be, title, meta, content, internal links, etc, .... So when I check my most relative key words with different tools, it always breaks the word up like: new - 12 times 2.3% orleans - 12 times 2.3% Should I try to fix this? or is this normal? and does google view this as 1 keyword when evaluating my site?
Technical SEO | | Nola5040 -
Canonical Issue?
Hi, I was using the On Page Report Card Tool here on SEOMOZ for the following page: http://www.priceline.com/eventi-a-kimpton-hotel-new-york-city-new-york-ny-1614979-hd.hotel-reviews-hotel-guides and it claims there is a canonical issue or improper use of it. I looked at the element and it seems to be fine: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.priceline.com/eventi-a-kimpton-hotel-new-york-city-new-york-ny-1614979-hd.hotel-reviews-hotel-guides" /> Can you spot the issue and how it would be fixed? Thanks. Eddy
Technical SEO | | workathomecareers0 -
Did I implement the Canonical Correctly?
Hello, I am trying for the first time to implement a canonical redirect on a page and would really appreciate it if someone could tell me if this was done correctly. I am trying to do a canonical redirect: -from http://www.diamondtours.com/default.aspx -to http://www.diamondtours.com/ As you will see in the source code of the default.aspx page, the line of code written is: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.diamondtours.com" /> Is this correct? Any guidance is greatly appreciated. Jeffrey Ferraro
Technical SEO | | JeffFerraro0