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?
-
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply. I understand your point. Now guide me what I have to do with these plenty of categories and tags at blog.cufflinksman.com . As SEOmoz showing approx 1600 duplicate content due to categories and tags at blog.
What approach you suggest me to remove these duplicate content and also improving ranking of cufflinksman.com(Our main site).
Hope you suggest excellent solution for this as I didn't like to no index these categories and tag as they have excellent content.
-
I will agree with John and in addition to that if it is possible for you to add no index to blog’s category pages it will better!
-
I wouldn't do that. rel=canonical is supposed to point between truly or near-truly duplicate pages, usually when things like URL parameters are on URLs but don't do anything to the content. These are completely different pages, category pages on your site, vs. ones on your blog. I would not recommend it. Chances are Google will just ignore your rel=canonical. It would likely not do any damage to your rankings, but who knows down the line... you never know when they'll release a Google aardvark or some other animal from the Google zoo.
Note my work firewall blocked the blog URL so I was looking at a cached version on Google. If the pages are truly duplicate (which they didn't appear to be), go for it.
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
-
Combining variants of "last modified", cache-duration etc
Hiya, As you know, you can specify the date of the last change of a document in various places, for example the sitemap, the http-header, ETag and also add an "expected" change, for example Cache-Duration via header/htaccess (or even the changefreq in the sitemap). Is it advisable or rather detrimental to use multiple variants that essentially tell browser/search engines the same thing? I.e. should I send a lastmod header AND ETag AND maybe something else? Should I send a cache duration at all if I send a lastmod? (Assume that I can keep them correct and consistent as the data for each will come from the very same place.) Also: Are there any clear recommendations on what change-indicating method should be used? Thanks for your answers! Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Redundant categorization - "boys" and "girls" category. Any other suggestions than implementing filtering?
One of our clients (a children's clothing company) has split their categories (outwear, tops, shoes) between boys and girls - There's one category page for girls outwear, and one category for boys outwear. I am suspecting that this redundant categorisation is diluting link juice and rankings for the related search queries. Important points: The clothes themselves are rather gender-neutral, girl's sweaters don't differ that much from the boy's sweaters. Our keyword research indicates that norwegians' search queries are also pretty gender neutral - people are generally searching after "children's dresses", "shoes for kids", "snowsuits", etc. So these gender specific categories are not really reflective of people's search behavior. I acknowledge that implementing a filter for "boys" and "girls" would be the best way to solve this redundant categorization, but that would simply be to expensive for our client. I'm thinking that some sort of canonicalisation would be the best approach to solve this issue. Are there any other suggestions or comments to this?
Technical SEO | | Inevo0 -
Our rankings for "Tree Service" dropped last month
Hi, we've had a page www.savatree.com/tree-service.html which was ranking top 1-12 on the google rankings but has complete dropped out. We don't have any duplicate errors from that page on here. Do you have any suggestions? We do rank highly on Bing and Yahoo (1-2 pages). We can't figure whats going on.
Technical SEO | | SavATree0 -
Why put rel=canonical to the same url ?
Hi all. I've heard that it's good to put the link rel canonical in your header even when there is no other important or prefered version of that url. If you take a look at moz.com and see the code, you'll see that they put the <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://moz.com" /> ... pointing at the same url ! But if you go to http://moz.com/products/pricing for example, they have no canonical there ! WHY ? Thanks in advance !
Technical SEO | | Tintanus0 -
Does the order of results from "site:www.example.com" tell us anything?
Does google rank in order of page authority with "site:www.example.com" or is it random? As most of the results of the first 6 pages for our site are internal search results pages ( eg www.example.com/search/product-results)
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
The fact that search results are index at all is frustrating, they are not linked to internally or externally. The open site explorer does not have any back links for any of the search pages, and I checked the submitted site map and no search urls are submitted, so I don't know how google are finding the search urls. Also tested some of the search urls with aherf and no back links. But since its ranking the search pages ahead of the category(landing) pages with "site:" has me worried that not only are they indexing the urls, but they giving them higher page authority0 -
Rel=author
Hi everyone, i'm trying to understand the rel=author thing for cotent, i need some clarification please. Firstly do you only use it for content on your site or can you have it for a guest post you have done on another domain which is not your own - linking to your author profile on your domain? Secondly implementing it, i understand it's 3 links: 1., Link on your content where the blog post is with a rel=author going to your domain authort page. 2., a link from your domain author page going to your google + profile. This is rel=me 3 a link on your google+ profile to your blog? if so how do i do this? i only have an option to edit about page and add recommended links? there is no 'contributor' section. I am UK profile also. Any help really appreciated, thanks guys.
Technical SEO | | pauledwards0 -
URL Structure "-" vs "/"? Are there any advantages to one over the other?
An example would be domain.com/keyword/keyword2 vs domain.com/keyword-keyword2 Are there any advantages / disadvantages to one over the other?
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
I have both a ".net" and a ".com" address for the Same Website.....
I have mysite.net and mysite.com......They are both the same age, however, we always had it so that the mysite.com address forwarded to the mysite.net address. The mysite.net address was our main address forever. We recently reversed that and made the mysite.com address the main address and just have mysite.net forward to the mysite.com address. I'm wondering if this change will affect our rankings since a lot of the backlinks we've acquired are actually pointing to mysite.net and not mysite.com (our new main address)???
Technical SEO | | B24Group0