Is rel=canonical needed for URLs with Google Analytics query strings?
-
If a page URL has Google Analytics query strings, does the page need a canonical tag? e.g.,
something.com/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=mar-2013-nsl
I have rel=canonical on all our pages because some of them will be accessed via URLs that have non-Google strings. The strings are only for marketing purposes, not for identifying a specific page to display. e.g.,
Should I only implement the canonical tag on the pages that might have non-Google marketing strings in the URL?
-
Another vote for proactively adding canonical tags to all pages. They're a great preventive measure in case someone else links with unusual parameters.
Also, Google is "supposed" to understand the UTM tags and ignore them, but we've all seen cases where Google's actual processes don't work quite like they're supposed to. (I've seen plenty of utm-tagged URLs indexed in Google)
(Plus, there's even less guarantee that other search engines would discount them and avoid dupe content. Bing et al may not be a huge traffic source on your site, but no sense throwing it away unnecessarily.)
Paul
-
Agreed. It can only help to set canonical. Google is smart enough to figure out to discard those parameters, as they are their own parameters. But you could also set those parameters to be ignored in GWT.
-
I would add them every page on your site, because pages with query parameters can get indexed by Google. Even if you don't use any parameters yourself, other sites can tack them onto your URL. Best to be safe and add them to all pages.
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
-
Browser Size = Not Set Filter in Google Analytics
I have been trying to filter this traffic out of my Google Analytics data since it all seems to be related to spam traffic. I have had multiple instances wherein using this filter:
Technical SEO | | fuelmedical
(Backslash not displaying in message preview - I have written backlash to indicate its placement in the filter) Custom Filter - Exclude - Browser Size - ^backlash(not setbackslash)$ Traffic seems to appropriately filter out - but then the filter ceases working. In looking at a new site with Browser Size = (not set) traffic the filter preview doesn't appear to work either. Am I implementing the filter incorrectly? How do I filter this traffic out of GA data sucessfully? If I use the exact same method using RegEx in Google Data Studio - the filter works perfectly.1 -
Drupal, http/https, canonicals and Google Search Console
I’m fairly new in an in-house role and am currently rooting around our Drupal website to improve it as a whole. Right now on my radar is our use of http / https, canonicals, and our use of Google Search Console. Initial issues noticed: We serve http and https versions of all our pages Our canonical tags just refer back to the URL it sits on (apparently a default Drupal thing, which is not much use) We don’t actually have https properties added in Search Console/GA I’ve spoken with our IT agency who migrated our old site to the current site, who have recommended forcing all pages to https and setting canonicals to all https pages, which is fine in theory, but I don’t think it’s as simple as this, right? An old Moz post I found talked about running into issues with images/CSS/javascript referencing http – is there anything else to consider, especially from an SEO perspective? I’m assuming that the appropriate certificates are in place, as the secure version of the site works perfectly well. And on the last point – am I safe to assume we have just never tracked any traffic for the secure version of the site? 😞 Thanks John
Technical SEO | | joberts0 -
Rel="canonical" in hyperlink
Inside my website, I use the rel = "canonical" but I do not use it in the but in a hyperlink. Now it is not clear to me if that goes well. See namely different stories about the Internet. My example below link: Bruiloft
Technical SEO | | NECAnGeL0 -
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 -
Google Reconsideration Request (Penguin) - Will Google give links to remove?
When Penguin v1 hit, our site took a hit for a single phrase (i.e. "widgets") due to the techniques our SEO company was using (network). We've since had those links cleaned up, and our rankings have not recovered. Our SEO company said they submitted a reconsideration request on our behalf, and that Google denied it and didn't provide which links we needed removed. Does Google list links that need removing if they are still not happy with your link profile?
Technical SEO | | crucialx0 -
Regarding Canonical Url
We have a e-commerce website. Our own homegrown:-) We recently visited Google Webmaster tools and could see that Google mention we have double Meta tags for some main and subcategories. Each Product Category on our site have a subcategory/ Sub url - "Bestseller", "On Sale", "just arrived". The sub url is not a really a real category and we can therefore not make totally unique description and title for does urls. domain.com/category domain.com/category/bestseller
Technical SEO | | areygie
domain.com/category/on-sale
domain.com/category/just-arrived We are thinking about 2 solutions. 1. Canonical Url on subcategory pointing to main category.
2. Or add a word bestseller, on sale or just arrived in front of the meta title/description. We can do this from code. I personally opt for option 1. But I am little unsure what is the best way to go. Thanks in advance for your advice0 -
Home page URL disappears in Google after switching to WordPress
It was a 10 page static HTML page website. 3 year old, PR2. Monday night, copied a WordPress from somewhere to this website's public_html folder and activate it. The home page was "index.html" before switching to WordPress. Now this html file (index.html) has been deleted, so WordPress' Home page can work. All other 9 static html pages are still there in Google index. Just notice it today that the home page URL disappears in Google completely. Why? All other 9 static html pages' URL are still in Google. robots.txt is Allow: / What may have gone wrong to remove the home domain URL from Google index? Thank you for your help!
Technical SEO | | johnzhel0 -
Query String Redirection
In PHP, I'm wanting to store a session variable based upon a link that's clicked. I'm wanting to avoid query strings on pages that have content. My current workaround is to have a link with query strings to a php file that does nothing but snags the variables via $_GET, stores them into $_SESSION, and then redirects. For example, consider this script, that I have set up to force to a mobile version. Accessed via something like a href="forcemobile.php?url=(the current filename)" session_start(); //Location of vertstudios file on your localhost. Include trailing slash $loc = "http://localhost/web/vertstudios/"; //If GET variable not defined, this page is being accessed directly. //In that case, force to 404 page. Same case for if mobile session variable //not defined. if(!(isset($_GET["url"]) && isset($_SESSION["mobile"]))){ header("Location: http://www.vertstudios.com/404.php"); exit(); } //Snag the URL $url = $_GET["url"]; //Set the mobile session to true, and redirect to specified URL $_SESSION["mobile"] = true;header("Location: " . $loc . $url); ?> Will this circumvent the issue caused by using query strings?
Technical SEO | | JoeQuery0