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 Sponsored on Internal Links
Hi all. Should you use rel sponsored on internal links? Here is the scenario: a company accepts money from one of their partners to place a prominent link on their home page. That link goes to an internal page on the company's website that contains information about that partner's service. If this was an external link that the partner was paying for, then you would obviously use rel="sponsored" but since this is a link that goes from awebsite.com to awebsite.com/some-page/, it seems odd to qualify that link in this way. Does this change if the link contains a "sponsored" label in the text (not in the rel qualifier)? Does this change if this link looks more like an ad (i.e. a banner image) vs. regular text (i.e. a link in a paragraph)? Thanks for any and all guidance or examples you can share!
Technical SEO | | Matthew_Edgar0 -
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Does Canonical Tag Syntax Matter?
Does anyone know definitively if the format of the canonical tag matters? Silly question I know. vs
Technical SEO | | Healio0 -
Curious Keyword Tags Question...
In 2012, we got hit with something... I have always assumed Panda... We have hundreds of thousands of products on our site. Prior to the traffic drop, our old site design listed a small number of keywords tags on the product pages. About 10 or so... After the site re-design, we allowed all of the keyword tags to appear on these product pages and also linked them to our search results pages. I know that one thing this did is cause a lot of these Search Results pages to be indexed. But our traffic has been constantly declining since then... I wonder what would happen if I just went back to the old with a smaller number of keywords listed and not linked? Any thoughts? Thanks! Craig
Technical SEO | | TheCraig0 -
Question About Using Disqus
I'm thinking about implementing Disqus on my blog. I'd like to know if the Disqus comments are indexed by search engines? It looks like they are displayed using Ajax or jQuery.
Technical SEO | | sbrault740 -
Specific Domain Migration Question
My company will be taking over an ecommerce site that is built to get local city/state traffic where the competition is slim to none for the given keyword. This site gets 2500+ visits per day, and we're looking to maintain and eventually grow that traffic. We would like to move that site onto our ecommerce platform which will force URL change and of every 'keyword' city/state page on the site. We're undecided whether to keep it on an unfamiliar platform that already gets traffic or to move it and possibly face the 404's or weeks of redirecting a single keyword-city/state page to another. Any advice or insight would be great!
Technical SEO | | BMac540 -
Canonicals for Real Estate
A real estate site has a landing page for a particular zip code: site.com/zip/99999 On this page, there are links which add arguments to the URL, resulting in structures like this: site.com/zip/99999?maxprice=1000000&maxbeds=3 My question is on using a canonical URL for the pages with arguments. These pages may have lots of duplicate content, so should I direct search engines back to the base URL for the search? (site.com/zip/99999) A side note is that these pages with arguments could have no listings returned (no listings found) or could come back with listings (then it wouldn't be duplicate), but that can change on a day to day basis.
Technical SEO | | SteveCastaneda0 -
Querystring params, rel canonical and SEO
I know ideally you should have as clean as possible url structures for optimal SEO. Our current site contains clean urls with very minimal use of query string params. There is a strong push, for business purposes to include click tracking on our site which will append a query string param to a large percentage of our internal links. Currently: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/ Will change to: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/?tg=zzzzwww We currently use rel canonical on all pages to properly define the true url in order to remove any possible duplicate content issues. Given we are already using rel canonical, if we implement the query string click tracking, will this negatively impact our SEO? If so, by how much? Could we run into duplicate content issues? We get crawled by Google a lot (very big site) and very large percent of our traffic is from Google, but there is a strong business need for this information so trying to weigh pros/cons.
Technical SEO | | NicB10