Canonical question
-
I have at least three duplicate main pages on my website:
www.augustbullocklaw.com/index
I want the first one, www.augustbullocklaw.com to be the main page. I put this code on the index page and uploaded it to my site: http://www.augustbullocklaw.com/canonical-version-of-page/" rel="canonical" />
This code now appears on all three pages shown above. Did I do this correctly?
I surmise that www.augustbullocklaw.com is pointing to itself. Is that ok?
I don't know how to take the cononical code off the page that is the page I want to be the main page. (I don't know how to remove it from www.augustbullocklaw.com, but leave it on www.augustbullocklaw.com/index and augustbullocklaw.com)
Thanks
-
Thank you very much for that clear answer!
-
Hi August,
You've made a small error; it looks like you've used the rel canonical example from here; http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content. The "canonical-version-of-page" there is supposed to be an example of a folder on the site and shouldn't be literal, so the code on your page should be:
Where the value inside the 'href' part is the URL to the page you wish to be the canonical version. I hope that makes sense!
What Francisco is suggesting is an alternative, and often preferred, method of handling this scenario, where a user trying to visit the other (non-canonical) versions of this URL would be redirected automatically by their browser to the canonical version. This does have some advantages but I'd say it isn't significant enough for you to worry about.
Best of luck!
-
301 redirects within .htaccess. I don't have a step by step because you can google it and get the code.
-
I can't understand that at all.
Are you (or someone) able to explain step by step what to do.
How exactly does one point the non-www to the www?
-
This is an .htaccess issue. You want to point the non-www to the www. This is not a canonical issue.
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
-
Canonical tag not working
I have a weebly site and I put the canonical tag in the header code but the moz crawler still says that I'm missing the canonical tag. Any tips?
Technical SEO | | ctpolarbears0 -
Should the canonical tag for the redirected pages be changed
Hi! Does anyone know if the canonical tag of the old redirected page should be changed, and include the URL of the new destination? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | AnahitG0 -
Rel="canonical"
HI, I have site named www.cufflinksman.com related to Cufflinks. I have also install WordPress in sub domain blog.cufflinksman.com. I am getting issue of duplicate content a site and blog have same categories but content different. Now I would like to rel="canonical" blog categories to site categories. http://www.cufflinksman.com/shop-cufflinks-by-hobbies-interests-movies-superhero-cufflinks.html http://blog.cufflinksman.com/category/superhero-cufflinks-2/ Is possible and also have any problem with Google with this trick?
Technical SEO | | cufflinksman0 -
X-cart page crawling question.
I have an x-cart site and it is showing only 1 page being crawled. I'm a newbie, is this common? Can it be changed? If so, how? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SteveLMCG0 -
Rel Canonical for Miva Merchant
Due to necessary pagination on the site that sells thousands of products, and due to products being assigned to more than one category in the Miva Merchant store, we have been battling duplicate content, and Meta tag issues. I asked lot of questions on the Miva forum on how to use rel canonical in Miva, and got this script below to use. It was supposed to solve all of our problems, but now it seems that every page of the site is under Rel Canonical Notices in the Crawl Diagnostics. I am not sure I am reading the Notices correctly, and if we achieved what we want or not. Here is an example of one listing: URL: http://www.domain.com/ABUS.html
Technical SEO | | 2CDevGroup
Tag Value: http://www.domain.com/
Page Authority: 28
Linking Root Domains: 1 | | | | |0 -
Summarize your question.Sitemap blocking or not blocking that is the question?
Hi from wet & overcast wetherby UK 😞 Ones question is this... " Is the sitemap plus boxes blocking bots ie they cant pass on this page http://www.langleys.com/Site-Map.aspx " Its just the + boxes that concern me, i remeber reading somewherte javascript nav can be toxic. Is there a way to test javascript nav set ups and see if they block bots or not? Thanks in advance 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0 -
Craw Diagnostics Questions
SEO Moz is reporting that I have 50+ pages with a duplicate content issue based on this URL: http://www. f r e d aldous.co.uk/art-shop/art-supplies/art-canvas.html?manufacturer=178 But I have included this tag in the source: rel="canonical" href="http://www.f r e daldous.co.uk/art-shop/art-supplies/art-canvas.html"/> (I have purposefully added white space to the URLs in this message as I'm not sure about the rules for posting links here) I though this "canonical" tag prevented the duplicate content being indexed? is the reporting by SEOMoz wrong or being over cautious?
Technical SEO | | niallfred0 -
Canonical tags and relative paths
Hi, I'm seeing a problem with Roger Bot crawling a clients site. In a campaign I am seeing you say that the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL. The tag is as follows:- /~/Standards-and....etc Google say:- relative paths are recognized as expected with the tag. Also, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL Is the issue with this, that there is a /~/, that there is no <base> link or just an issue with Roger? Best regards, Peter
Technical SEO | | peeveezee0