Rel="canonical" of .html/ to .html
-
Hi,
could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless?
I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls.
http://www.example.com/petra.html/
to
http://www.example.com/petra.htmlI mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ???
Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical.
What is your position here?
-
they probably made a mistake. .html is the filename, not a folder and therefor no trailing slash. I would ask them to clarify.
As a matter of fact I would even strip off the .html extension.
-
Hi Petra
That seems a bit weird to say the least.
I'm guessing that the consultant recommends the canonical tag to avoid a duplicate content issue with the two URLs?
Well, simply putting the canonical tag on petra.html should fix that, as it will tell Google not to index any other variant of this URL (be it with ? queries or / slashes).
Similarly, if you have links going to the petra.html/ page for whatever reason, I'd pop in a 301 redirect like you said.
Now, if they were two separate, but identical, pages that are designed to both exist for the user, the consultant would have a point. I would point a canonical on petra.html/ to petra.html, but I would actually put "noindex" and "nofollow" meta tags in the header of one of the pages first and foremost, as I believe this is more of a definitive signal.
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
-
No Follow & Rel Canon for Product Filters
Our site uses Canonicals to address duplicate content issues with product/facet filtering. example: www.mysite.com/product?color=blue Relcanon= www.mysite.com/product However, our site is also using no follow for all of the "filters" on a page (so all ?color=, etc. links are no follow). What is the benefit of utilizing the no follow on the filters if we have the rel canon in place? Is this an effort to save crawl budget? Are we giving up possible SEO juice by having the no follow and not having the crawler get to the canonical tag and subsequently reference the main page? Is this just something we just forget about? I hope we're not giving up SEO juice by
Technical SEO | | Remke0 -
Organic search traffic stats "leaking" into other channels?
Hi Everyone I have a website and am slowly getting to grips with SEO. Last week I enabled a new channel in google analytics which was "email" so I could track effectiveness of the weekly emails we send out. The good news is that a ton of traffic is now being assigned to the email "channel" in GA but my organic search traffic in channels is now down week on week. That feels odd as my overall traffic to the site is up, week on week. Does anyone have any experience of new channels coming on stream and canniballising old ones? Could it be that some of the traffic associated to organic search previously was actually coming from my email, I just didn't know it? thanks all!
Technical SEO | | NappyValleyNet1 -
We have 302 redirect links on our forum that point to individual posts. Should we add a rel="nofollow" to these links?
Moz is showing us that we have a HUGE amount of 302 redirects. These are coming from our community forum. Forum URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/ Example thread URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/ Example URL that points to a specific reply: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewreply/1582/ The above link 302 redirects to this URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/#1582 My two questions would be: Do you think we should we add rel=nofollow to the specific reply URLs? If possible, should we make those redirects 301 vs. 302? Screencast attached. nofollow_302.mp4
Technical SEO | | Bjork1 -
Rel=canonical - Identical .com and .us Version of Site
We have a .us and a .com version of our site that we direct customers to based on location to servers. This is not changing for the foreseeable future. We had restricted Google from crawling the .us version of the site and all was fine until I started to see the https version of the .us appearing in the SERPs for certain keywords we keep an eye on. The .com still exists and is sometimes directly above or under the .us. It is occasionally a different page on the site with similar content to the query, or sometimes it just returns the exact same page for both the .com and the .us results. This has me worried about duplicate content issues. The question(s): Should I just get the https version of the .us to not be crawled/indexed and leave it at that or should I work to get a rel=canonical set up for the entire .us to .com (making the .com the canonical version)? Are there any major pitfalls I should be aware of in regards to the rel=canonical across the entire domain (both the .us and .com are identical and these newly crawled/indexed .us pages rank pretty nicely sometimes)? Am I better off just correcting it so the .us is no longer crawled and indexed and leaving it at that? Side question: Have any ecommerce guys noticed that Googlebot has started to crawl/index and serve up https version of your URLs in the SERPs even if the only way to get into those versions of the pages are to either append the https:// yourself to the URL or to go through a sign in or check out page? Is Google, in the wake of their https everywhere and potentially making it a ranking signal, forcing the check for the https of any given URL and choosing to index that? I just can't figure out how it is even finding those URLs to index if it isn't seeing http://www.example.com and then adding the https:// itself and checking... Help/insight on either point would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | TLM0 -
Combining 2 blogs into one. What is quicker, easier and better - rel canonical or an htaccess/ 301?
The objective I have is to archive an entire blog (which I no longer have time to keep up) with multiple posts over 4years , into another blog as a a folder. My question: would it be quicker and easier to do a rel canonical, or separately list all pages in htaccess and do a 301 redirect.
Technical SEO | | charlesgrimm0 -
Is it OK for a sitemap to appear as a "Top URL" in Google Webmaster?
I'm using Google Webmaster (alongside other tools) to understand how Google is indexing my site. One of the tools is "Content Keywords", where it lists keywords that Google sees as significant for your site. The keywords shown are generally fine, but when I click on an individual word, I am often seeing our sitemap as one of the "Top URLs" that the keyword is found on (our sitemap is at system/sitemap1.xml.gz) - is this OK? Obviously I don't want to add the sitemap URL to robots.txt, but I also want to ensure that 'real' user-focused pages (e.g. our homepage) appear higher in the "Top URLs" list for the keywords, as I'm assuming this is an indicator of how the site is performing in search. Any help appreciated!
Technical SEO | | anilababla0 -
Any Positive Experiences with Rel=Next Rel=Prev for pagination?
Hi Mozzers! Can you share your experience and observations in implementing rel=next rel=prev on sites you've worked on?
Technical SEO | | SparkplugDigital0 -
Canonical
I am seeing canonical implementation in many sites for non identical pages. Google honoring these implementation and didn't have any issue. Did anyone have different experience? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | gmk15670