Rel=canonical
-
I have seen that almost all of my website pages need rel=canonical tag.
Seems that something's wrong here since I have unique content to every page.
Even show the homepage as a rel=canonical which doesnt make sense.
Can anyone suggest anything? or just ignore those issues.
-
Thank you. i have set it to all pages but i will have a look for any duplicates by using Xenu program.
-
You can implement it side wide on all pages, but make sure that you do it correctly. One other added benefit is that if anyone scrapes your content, if they scrape the code that includes your canonical link, you would get proper attribution.
Also, if you do it site wide, on any pages where you do want the canonical pointing to another page, make sure that you don't overwrite those. Example, you may have the printer friendly version of a page canonical to the original version of the page - this makes sense and is a good use of canonical. You would not want to overwrite that canonical with the canonical to self.
Cheers!
-
Thanks,
Okay so you recommend add rel canonical only for homepage right?
-
The link that kosta list relates to the use of the rel=canonical for multi lingual pages.
I would point you to Dr. Pete (below) and I think he has good advice. I also love to eat cannonscicles, but that is another story. Generally, you can do it, but you need to know what you are doing to make sure that you do not screw something up.
I had an issue on a site where Google was still caching old URLs on our site, even though we had relaunched the URL structure and setup 301 redirects - over two years prior. An SEO consultant we work with suggested dropping in the self canonicalizing (sp?) links and over a period of a couple of months the old URLs were replaced in the Google SERPs and GWT report pages.
Cheers!
http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
"(6) Is It OK to Put Rel=Canonical on My Entire Site?
Should you pre-emptively rel=canonical your entire site – even if many of the pages aren’t subject to duplicate content issues? I think this gets very speculative. We have recommended this approach at SEOmoz in the past, and I think it’s generally safe. I do worry that excessive use of rel=canonical could cause search engines to devalue and even ignore those tags, but I can’t point to any clear evidence of this happening. I also worry that people often implement site-wide rel=canonical tags badly, and end up pointing them to the wrong pages.
I do think that a pre-emptive rel=canonical on your home-page is generally a good ideas, as home pages are prone to URL variations. In a perfect world, I’d say to use rel=canonical on the home-page, known duplicates, and any pages with parameters that could drive duplicate content, and leave the rest alone. However, that’s often a very difficult procedure. In some cases, site-wide rel=canonical implementation is better than no index control."
-
should i use on every page since its a unique page?
or dont use it at all.
How about this ?
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/new-markup-for-multilingual-content.html
**Update: to simplify implementation, we no longer recommend using rel=canonical.
A bit of confusion.
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
-
Link rel=next and prev validator?
Can I validate link next and prev markup for paginated content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Evan340 -
No Index No follow instead of Rel canoncical on product pages
Hi all, we handle our product pages no with rel canonical now, we have 1 url that is indexed http://www.prams.net/cam-combi-family the other colours have different urls like http://www.prams.net/cam-combi-family-3-in-1-pram-reversible-seat-car-seat-grey-d which canonicalize to the indexed page. Google still crawls all those pages. For crawl budget reasons we want to use "no index, no follow" instead on these pages (the pages for the other colours)? Google would then crawl fewer pages more often? Does this make sense? Are their any downsides doing it? Thanks in advance Dieter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Storesco1 -
Self referencing canonicals and paginated content - advice needed
Hi, I help manage a large site that uses a lot of params for tracking, testing and to help deal with paginated content e.g. abc.com/productreview?page=2. The paginated review content correctly uses rel next and rel prev tags to ensure we get the value of all of the paginated review content that we have. The volume of param exclusions I need to maintain in Google & Bing Webmaster tools is getting clunky and frustrating. I would like to use self referencing canonicals, which would make life a lot easier. Here's my issue: If I use canonicals on the review pages the paginated content urls would also use the same canonical e.g. /productreview?page=2 pointing to /productreview I believe I am going to lose the value of those reviews, even though they use the rel next rel prev tags. BTW airbnb do this - do they know something I don't, don't care about the paginated reviews, or are they doing it incorrectly, see http://d.pr/i/14mPU Is my assertion above correct about losing the value of the paginated reviews if I use self referencing canonicals? Any thoughts on a solution to clearing up the param problem or do I have to live with it? Thanks in advance, Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
Do I need to use rel="canonical" on pages with no external links?
I know having rel="canonical" for each page on my website is not a bad practice... but how necessary is it for pages that don't have any external links pointing to them? I have my own opinions on this, to be fair - but I'd love to get a consensus before I start trying to customize which URLs have/don't have it included. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netrepid0 -
Include Cross Domain Canonical URL's in Sitemap - Yes or No?
I have several sites that have cross domain canonical tags setup on similar pages. I am unsure if these pages that are canonicalized to a different domain should be included in the sitemap. My first thought is no, because I should only include pages in the sitemap that I want indexed. On the other hand, if I include ALL pages on my site in the sitemap, once Google gets to a page that has a cross domain canonical tag, I'm assuming it will just note that and determine if the canonicalized page is the better version. I have yet to see any errors in GWT about this. I have seen errors where I included a 301 redirect in my sitemap file. I suspect its ok, but to me, it seems that Google would rather not find these URL's in a sitemap, have to crawl them time and time again to determine if they are the best page, even though I'm indicating that this page has a similar page that I'd rather have indexed.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WEB-IRS0 -
Canonical & noindex? Use together
For duplicate pages created by the "print" function, seomoz says its better to use noindex (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not) and JohnMu says its better to use canonical http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6c18b666a552585d&hl=en What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1 -
Rel Canonical Syntax
My IT department is getting ready to setup the rel canonical tag, finally. I took a look at the code on our test server and see that they are using a single quote in the tag syntax (see code block below). Should I be concerned? Will Google read those lines the same? <link rel='canonical' href='[http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits](view-source:http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits)' />VS. **versus** <link rel="canonical" href="[http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits](view-source:http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits)" />
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | costume0 -
Canonical and optimization
Hi, I was thinking: If I had 4 pages, each of them optimized for an especific keyword, but set a canonical url to another page, would this another page rank for the 5 specific keywords? Ex: Page 1- Shoes
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PedroVillalobos
Page 2- Snickers
Page 3- Socks
Page 4- Feet
All set the canonical url to Page 5 Page 5 will rank for all this four keywords?0