Rel Canonical
-
hi folks
sorry i really am confused and not very good with technical terms
i have 553 Rel Canonical notices but i cant understand what Rel Canonical actually means it kinda sounds like there links that go nowhere to help the seo ranking? am i right or just in way over my head?
please use the most basic language you can
cheers
donal
-
The "Notice" level is just telling you that your pages all have rel=canonical elements on them, and they all seem to be pointing to themselves. This is really just a heads up, and doesn't indicate a problem, per se.
As you grow, I think you may want to control how some of your very similar pages are indexed, such as color and quantity variations. These pages can look "thin" to Google, in that they're very similar. Currently, though, your site is small enough that it shouldn't be a big issue, and our notice is the lowest least severe message (notice < warning < error).
The rel=canonical element basically tells Google that two URLs are equivalent or very similar, and to only allow one to rank. This helps control duplicates and avoid issues with Panda or having Google filter out pages in unexpected ways.
-
im still totally confused but ill make the question different is it a good thing to have 553 Rel Canonical things or should i try get rid/fix them??
-
Canonical URL's are two url's that point to the exact same webpage.
It's not a link that users can click on or anything. It's like an invisible note to search engines that tells them there are other URL's on your website that point to the same page. It keeps search engines from getting confused.
-
Hi Donal
I really can't explain it better than the SEOMoz guide itself, which you can read here.
Getting the notices in the ranking report is not a bad thing at all - it only serves to remind you that you have the tags on your site and to make sure they're set up correctly.
Have a read through the guide given above, as it helps explain how and why we might want to use them in simple terms.
Hope this helps!
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
-
Duplicate Content errors - not going away with canonical
I am getting Duplicate Content Errors reported by Moz on search result pages due to parameters. I went through the document on resolving Duplicate Content errors and implemented the canonical solution to resolve it. The canonical in the header has been in place for a few weeks now and Moz is still showing the pages as Duplicate Content despite the canonical reference. Is this a Moz bug? http://mathematica-mpr.com/news/?facet={81C018ED-CEB9-477D-AFCC-1E6989A1D6CF}
Moz Pro | | jpfleiderer0 -
Can someone kindly explain what 'Crawl Issue Found: No rel="canonical" Tags' means? Is this a critical error and how can it be rectified?
Can someone kindly explain what 'Crawl Issue Found: No rel="canonical" Tags' means? Is this a critical error and how can it be rectified?
Moz Pro | | JoshMcLean0 -
Does Moz recognize rel next prev tags? Magento question
Howdy Mozzers! We are running a store in magento where we have many products in each category. Hence view all for category pages is not an option. We have applied rel next prev tags to our paginated pages in the following manner Example for page 2 in a category: The issue we are facing is that Moz suggests www.domain.com/category and www.domain.com/category?p=1 as duplicates, even though rel next prev tags are implemented. 1. Does nel next prev consolidate link juice?
Moz Pro | | MozAddict
2. Does Moz recognize the tags?
3. Will this work for us or should we implement canonical tags as well?0 -
301 or canonical for multiple homepage versions?
I used 301 redirects to point several versions of the homepage to www.site.com. i was just rereading moz's beginners guide to seo, and it uses that scenario as an example for rel canonical, not 301 redirects. Which is better? My understanding is that 301s remove all doubt of getting links to the wrong version and diluting link equity.
Moz Pro | | kimmiedawn0 -
Did anyone else see "Rel Canonical" drop to zero after their latest SEOmoz crawl?
In the Crawl Diagnostics section of the SEOmoz reports, we get errors in red, warnings in yellow, and notices in blue. After my latest crawl, I saw the "Rel Canonical" part go from about 300 down to 0. Obviously, this isn't right, so I'm wondering if this is a bug that everyone is experiencing. U9W5I
Moz Pro | | UnderRugSwept0 -
'Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical', Critical Factor but appears correct on page
Hi, Trying to get the following page ranked unsuccessfully.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/2/Collections-Quilted-Jackets/c01c02.r16.1 Instead a product page is being ranked, shown below.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/Womens-Quilted-Jacket/Navy/M_HAMPTON/ProductDetail.raction When I run the on page report card it advises that the Rel Canonical tag needs to point to that page, but we have checked and it looks to be doing that already. Has anyone else had an issue like this? Thanks, Martin
Moz Pro | | rockethot0 -
Will canonical tag get rid of duplicate page title errors?
I have a directory on my website, paginated in groups of 10. On page 2 of the results, the title tag is the same as the first page, as it is on the 3rd page and so on. This is giving me duplicate page title errors. If i use rel=canonical tags on the subsequent pages and href the first page of my results, will my duplicate page title warnings go away? thanks.
Moz Pro | | fourthdimensioninc0 -
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