Rel canonical question
-
Hi,
I have an e-commerce site hosted on Volusion currently the rel canonical link for the homepage points to www.store.com/default.asp. I spoke with the Volusion support people and they told me that whether the canonical link points to store.com/default.asp or store.com does not really matter as long as there is a canonical version. I thought this sounded odd, so looked at other websites hosted on volusion and some sites canonicalize to default.asp and others .com. (volusion.com canonicalizes to .com fwiw).
The question is...I have a majority of my external links going to www.store.com , and since that page has default.asp as it canonical version, am I losing link juice from those incoming links? If so, should I change the canonical link? If I do what are the potential issues/penalties?
Hopefully this question makes sense and thanks in advance.
-
Hi Dana
How do I change such rel canonical for Volusion store?
Thanks in advance.
-
Dana,
Did you ever run into this issue with one of those volusion stores?
-
Thanks for the responses
That was my hunch...appreciate the help
-
I agree with Anthony. I managed 6 Volusion stores for one company for several years. It's a decent platform, but don't rely on them for your technical SEO advice. Some of their tech reps are very green.
-
Technically, it doesn't necessarily matter. However, it matters to you for these two reasons.
- The majority of your external links point to the regular store.com website
- You want your store.com URL to rank for branding and CT purposes
Losing link juice: probably negligible but why risk it
I would change the canonical link. It should not be a difficult switch.
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
-
Questions about the DA,PA of website
I am counting on some more ads on the site https://gogoanime.city/, is it a problem if I add some ads about sex, porn ..., to make a little more money. So does it affect the PA DA score. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | gogoanimetp0 -
Ajax Pagination in Magento Question
Hi, We just launched our new theme for Magento and my developer stated the pagination uses Ajax. Previously I had the developers set up rel prev/next for all our pages (categories/ecommerce site) that had multiples. He said it's not required with Ajax. Is this correct? Example: https://www.bestpricenutrition.com/whey.html and when you go to Page 2, the URL shows: https://www.bestpricenutrition.com/whey.html? I want to make sure these pages are set up correctly.
Technical SEO | | vetofunk0 -
Duplicate content and rel canonicals?
Hi. I have a question relating to 2 sites that I manage with regards to duplicate content. These are 2 separate companies but the content is off a data base from the one(in other words the same). In terms of the rel canonical, how would we do this so that google does not penalise either site but can also have the content to crawl for both or is this just a dream?
Technical SEO | | ProsperoDigital0 -
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 -
301s vs. rel=canonical for duplicate content across domains
Howdy mozzers, I just took on a telecommunications client who has spent the last few years acquiring smaller communications companies. When they took over these companies, they simply duplicated their site at all the old domains, resulting in a bunch of sites across the web with the exact same content. Obviously I'd like them all 301'd to their main site, but I'm getting push back. Am I OK to simply plug in rel=canonical tags across the duplicate sites? All the content is literally exactly the same. Thanks as always
Technical SEO | | jamesm5i0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Robots.txt question
Hello, What does the following command mean - User-agent: * Allow: / Does it mean that we are blocking all spiders ? Is Allow supported in robots.txt ? Thanks
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Confused about rel="canonical"
I'm receiving a duplicate content error in my reports for www.example.com and www.example.com/index.htm. Should I put the rel="canonical" on the index page and point it to www.example.com? And if I have other important pages where rel="canonical" is being suggested do I place the rel="canonical" on that page? For example if www.example/product is an important page would I place on that page?
Technical SEO | | BrandonC-2698870