Rel Canonical Question
-
Hi all.
I think I'm a bit confused. When I check my crawl diagnostics its listing lots of warnings under the heading rel-canonical. I am not sure why, since virtually all my pages have the link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" tag. I use it because there are a lot of possible extensions that can appear on the pages as it is an eCommerce site.
Why would seomoz list this as a warning?
Thanks
Ken
-
Glad I could help!
Kelli
-
It turns out they are notices, not warnings. I didn't really see the difference until you pointed it out.
Thanks for the info!
Ken
-
Are you sure it's a warning (yellow) and not a notice (blue)? Notices are just letting you know that they found something that may be of interest to you and not necessarily a problem.
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 choose the best canonical URL
In a duplicate content situation, and assuming that both rel=canonical and a 301 redirect pass link equity (I know there is still some speculation on this), how should you choose the "best" version of the URL to establish as the redirect target or authoritative URL? For example, we have a series of duplicate pages on our site. Typically we choose the "cleanest" or shortest non-trailing-slash version of the URL as the canonical, but what if those pages are already established and have varying page authority/backlink profiles? The URLs are: example.com/stores/locate/index?parameters=tags - PA = 54, Inbound Links = 259 example.com/stores/locate/index - PA = 60, Inbound Links = 302 example.com/stores/ - This is the version that currently ranks. PA = 42, Inbound Links = 3 example.com/stores - PA = 40, Inbound Links = 8 This might not really even matter, but in the interests of conserving as much SEO value as possible, which would you choose as either the 301 redirect target and/or the canonical version? My gut is to go with the URL that's already ranking (example.com/stores/) but curious if PA, backlinks, and trailing slashes should be considered also. We of course would not 301 the URL with the tracking parameters. 🙂 Thanks for your help!
Moz Pro | | Critical_Mass0 -
A 301 redirect to a page with a rel canonical to a page with a 301 question...
MOZ registers thousands of DC and Duplicate titles on a Drupal site which has a little strange setup. Example: www.1234.com/en-us 301 redirects to www.realsite.com/en-us which has a rel canonical to www.1234.com which 301 redirects to www.realsite.com. If you're still with me I thank you.
Moz Pro | | Crunchii
My question is since MOZ registers errors, if indeed the rel canonical isn't recognized due to a 301 redirect?0 -
How to un-answer a question?
Being new here I'm pressing all sorts of buttons and breaking things... I posted a question, liked someone's answer so click "good answer" thinking it was like a "thumbs up" but it actually set my question to "answered". How does one set their own question to un-answered?
Moz Pro | | eatyourveggies1 -
Duplicate page content showing up with proper use of canonical tag
Hi, In the Crawl diagnostics reports, I'm getting lots of duplicate errors warnings e.g. duplicate page title. In most cases these are tracking urls and the page has a canonical tag pointing to the original page. It would be helpful if the crawl analysis reports could separate these out from ones that are of genuine concern. It can also happen when there's a noindex tag on a page. Thanks, Leigh
Moz Pro | | Leighm0 -
Do new Mozzers realise it takes effort to respond to their questions?
I see a lot of people asking questions and getting some pretty good responses, but the people who are responding, often do not get a thumbs up for their answer. If you are new and you are reading this, then you maybe do not understand that a thumbs up actually helps the person who gave their time to answer your question. There are several ways it helps, including giving feedback that the answer or the attempt to answer was actually useful, that you learned something or you appreciate the time it took to check your questions and give you feedback that you don't get in other forums, where you might be ignored for weeks or months. This is a collaborative forum and we are all here to learn something and to pass some of our knowledge to others who need it. Not every answer we give needs a thumbs up, but if you got something out of the answer, then, surely it is worth a second of your time to say "Thanks, that helped me" or "Yes, I agree with this"
Moz Pro | | loopyal13 -
Crawl Diagnostics finding pages that dont exist. Will Rel Canon Help?
I have recently set up a campaign for www.completeoffice.co.uk. Im the in-house developer there. When the crawl diagnostics completed, i went to check the results, and to my surprise, it had well over 100 missing or empty title tags. I then clicked it to see what pages, and nearly all the pages it say have missing or empty title tags, DO NOT EXIST. This has really confused me and need help figuring out how to solve this. Can anyone help? Attached image is a screen shot of some of the links it showed me on crawl diagnostics, nearly all of these do not exist. Will the relation Canonical tag in the head section of the actual pages help? For example, The actual page that exist is: www.completeoffice.co.uk/Products.php Whereas, when crawled it actually showed www.completeoffice.co.uk/Products/Products.php Will have the rel can tag in the header of the real products.php solve this?
Moz Pro | | CompleteOffice0 -
SEOMOZ Canonical notices using Wordpress
I keeping getting the notice from SEO Moz Crawls relating to Canonical issues. I have tried Yoast SEO, All-in-One SEO and both insert the appropriate canonical code... Can anyone help determine why the crawls report this notice? Check out seoontario.ca\testamonials for an example. Could it be because the site in my SEOMOZ crawl does not have the http:// prefix? I've now installed FV Simpler SEO, a variant of All In Once SEO, but am getting the same canonical code...
Moz Pro | | kbryanton0 -
Canonical tags and SEOmoz crawls
Hi there. Recently, we've made some changes to http://www.gear-zone.co.uk/ to implement canonical tags to some dynamically generated pages to stop duplicate content issues. Previously, these were blocked with robots.txt. In Webmaster Tools, everything looks great - pages crawled has shot up, and overall traffic and sales has seen a positive increase. However the SEOmoz crawl report is now showing a huge increase in duplicate content issues. What I'd like to know is whether SEOmoz registers a canonical tag as preventing a piece of duplicate content, or just adds to it the notices report. That is, if I have 10 pages of duplicate content all with correct canonical tags, will I still see 10 errors in the crawl, but also 10 notices showing a canonical has been found? Or, should it be 0 duplicate content errors, but 10 notices of canonicals? I know it's a small point, but it could potentially have a big difference. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | neooptic0