REL CANONİCAL
-
Hi,
The Original Page: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/
Page 2: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/?sayfa=2
Page 3: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/?sayfa=3
Page 4:http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/?sayfa=4
we added this rel="canonical" href="http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/" /> tag all these pages
Is it right?
-
There is no SEO software can help you determine if you have implemented correctly the canonical links(which page you are targeting with optimization). What they can do is to notice you about the fact that you have a canonical link present on that specific page. Which data you can export and analyze. Unfortunately this means a lot of manual work for you or your team.
Just think about the fact that you might Point a Canonical link from Page A -> Page A and from Page B-> Page B (because you have a script that will point a canonical to itself). Eventually these two pages are the same, it will be quite confusing to a search engine, right?
Or Page A -> Page B, Page B-> Page C and so on... that's also something that you would like to avoid.
Another case Page A -> Page B, Page B -> Page A.
With exporting the data that SEOmoz gives you and analyzing it in Excel (or a similar program), you will have the chance to avoid these problems.
I hope it helped and cleared the picture a little-bit
Istvan
-
I am not sure but i guess It is simply notifying you that you are doing this.. it sis not necessarily bad! similar to... lets say for some reason you are using 302 redirection instead of 301 so in that case SEOmoz will add 302 redirection under notice tab so that you know what you are doing and if this is not something you like just switch things accordingly!
for exact reasons i guess you should email to help@seomoz.org
-
Thank you Moosa Hemani,
So why SEOMOZ show us the rel=canonical in Crawl Notices, i do not understand
We use this tag in 157 pages -
real canonical... thats perfect!
-
congrats, you did it correctly
-
Yes, that looks right. Have the placed it within the sections of the pages?
-
yep.
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 -
Does all in one seo pack still have a rel canonical issue?
Hi All, I know that the all in one had errors in its rel canonical links on Wordpress but I wondered if this has been fixed. I get mixed info on the web. Anyone know for sure? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | xvpn9020 -
Rel canonical for partner sites - product pages only or also homepage and other key pages?
Hello there Our main site is www.arenaflowers.com. We also run a number of partner sites (eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/). We've relcanonical'd the products on the partner site back to the main (arenaflowers.com) site. eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013 rel canonicals back to: http://www.arenaflowers.com/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013). My question: Should we also relcanonical the homepage and other key pages on partner sites back to the main arenaflowers website too? The content is similar but not identical. We don't want our partner sites to be outranking the original (as is the case on kw flower delivery for example). (NB this situation may be complicated by the fact we appear to have an unnatural link penalty on af.com (and when we did an upgrade a while back, the af.com site fell out of the index altogether due to some issues with our move to AWS.) We're getting professional SEO advice on this but wondered what the Moz community's thoughts were.. Cheers, Will
Technical SEO | | ArenaFlowers.com0 -
Canonical & rel=prev / next changes to website a good idea or not?
Hi all, I decided yesterday to make a load of changes to my website, and today i woke thinking, should i have done that! So below is an example of what i have done (i will try to explain clearly anyway), can you let me know if you think what i have done would harm or help my website in search results etc... ok, so lets take just one category - Cameras And it has the sub categories - box dome bullet it also has other sub categories (which are actually features, but the only way i can show them on my site is by having them as a sub-category with its own static page, and adding the products to these as secondary categories) vandal proof high resolution night vision previously i have it set up so that every single category / sub category / feature had its own static page, with a canonical tag to itself (i.e cameras.html canonical was to cameras.html, vandalproof.html canonical was to vandalproof.html). Any of the categories / sub cats / features that had more than one page were simply not in search results due to the canonical pointing to "Page 1"... What i have now done: Last night i decided to change all this, now for all categories / sub cats / features i have add rel=prev / next where applicable, and removed the canonical from second / third / fourth pages etc, but left the canonical on "page 1". I also removed any keywords from page 2,3,4 etc and changed descriptions to just page "X" + category name. So for example, page one looks like: and page two looks like: I also went a little further (maybe too far) and decided that the features pages would canonicalize back to cameras so for those i now have: Page 1: Page 2: Any advice is welcome on the above, in regards to which way may be better and why, and obviously if anything jumps out as a mistake... Please advise James
Technical SEO | | isntworkdull0 -
Rel=Canonical Help
The site in question is www.example.com/example. The client has added a rel=canonical tag to this page as . In other words, instead of putting the tag on the pages that are not to be canonical and pointing them to this one, they are doing it backwards and putting the same URL as the canonical one as the page they are putting the tag on. They have done this with thousands of pages. I know this is incorrect, but my question is, until the issue is resolved, are these tags hurting them at all just being there?
Technical SEO | | rock220 -
Rel canonical question
Hi, I have an e-commerce site hosted on Volusion currently the rel canonical link for the homepage points to www.store.com/default.asp. I spoke with the Volusion support people and they told me that whether the canonical link points to store.com/default.asp or store.com does not really matter as long as there is a canonical version. I thought this sounded odd, so looked at other websites hosted on volusion and some sites canonicalize to default.asp and others .com. (volusion.com canonicalizes to .com fwiw). The question is...I have a majority of my external links going to www.store.com , and since that page has default.asp as it canonical version, am I losing link juice from those incoming links? If so, should I change the canonical link? If I do what are the potential issues/penalties? Hopefully this question makes sense and thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | IOSC0 -
Should I implement pagination(rel=next, rel=prev) if I have duplicate meta tags?
Hi, I just want to ask if it is necessary to implement pagination(rel=next, rel=prev) to my category pages because Google webmaster tools is telling me that these pages are having similar meta title and meta description. Ex. page1: http://www.site.com/iphone-resellers/1 meta title:Search for iphone resellers in US page2:http://www.site.com/iphone-resellers/2 meta title:Search for iphone resellers in US page3:http://www.site.com/iphone-resellers/3 meta title:Search for iphone resellers in US Thanks in advance. 🙂
Technical SEO | | esiow20130 -
Getting rid of duplicate content with rel=canonical
This may sound like a stupid question, however it's important that I get this 100% straight. A new client has nearly 6k duplicate page titles / descriptions. To cut a long story short, this is mostly the same page (or rather a set of pages), however every time Google visits these pages they get a different URL. Hence the astronomical number of duplicate page titles and descriptions. Now the easiest way to fix this looks like canonical linking. However, I want to be absolutely 100% sure that Google will then recognise that there is no duplicate content on the site. Ideally I'd like to 301 but the developers say this isn't possible, so I'm really hoping the canonical will do the job. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | RiceMedia0
