Rel canonical
-
Hi,
Since we sorted all duplication issues using the rel canonical tag in the home page, and redirects in the htaccess file, our Moz Ranking has dropped markedly (possibly because there are now less apparent links on our site. At the same time our rankings and traffic from Google have dropped markedly.
I notice that none of our top ranking competitors are using the rel canonical tag in the source on their home pages.
We have just performed the same seo strategy on another unrelated site with the same immediate drop in MOZ ranking.
-
Thanks Peter,
I will check this out further
-
I can't think of any reason using canonicals would impact your Domain Authority in our metrics (again, unless something went horribly wrong). My best guess is that this is a coincidence and you've got something else going on, likely something related to your link profile.
-
Hi, Thanks to both Peter & Jarno for their replies.
I must apologise in that I meant that the Domain Authority, as measured in the Competitive Domain Analysis, which has suffered principally in each case the actual Domain Mozrank has only changed a little.
Yes I am sure we are using the rel canonical tag correctly. We got this information from SEOMOZ forum and checked it out independently. Removing the duplication resulted in the correct number of files being seen.
Howard
-
Just to second @Jarno - my immediate reaction is that the implementation went very wrong (which is far too easy when you're messing with .htaccess). The only times I've seen rel=canonical harm a site's rankings is when an implementation cause a ton of non-identical pages to be canonical'ed to just a few pages.
It depends a lot on scale, too. Google has had issues with very large-scale 301 redirect implementations, for example - especially if the 301s don't seem to be appropriate or are just to consolidate authority. I expect them to crack down more on that.
When you say "Moz Ranking", do you mean the MozRank metric, or the actual search rankings as measured by our tools?
-
are you sure you are using the rel=canonical in the right way? You should include it linking to your own page and on page duplicates so you let the search engines know what page is the original one. If there only is one copy op the page you could debate the fact that the rel=canonical isn't necessary for that page.
For instance: If you have 3 pages about vacuum cleaners and page A is the original one then you include a rel=canonical on page A, B and C all pointing to page A
But what if you only have page A? Why should it then link to page A telling that this is the original post? There's only one page about the subject so that makes it the original post right?
I feel pretty strong about using code that has a use for it. For instance, the keyword tag is no longer used by search engines only by your competitors, so why use it? If you only have one page about a specific subject, why use the rel=canonical? The only reason I can come up with is that when someone duplicates your page they include the tag pointing to your site.
Misuse of technical solutions for specific issues doesn't seem right to me. You can use a car, but if you drive to fast or on the wrong lane you're misusing the technical solution for transporting yourself of goods from location A to B and if you get caught doing so, you will be punished. Right?
Hope i made some sense to you.
Any other thoughts on this matter?
regards
Jarno
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
-
What happens when we canonical and point to a page which has been redirected to another page? Google response!
Hi all, I would like to know the different scenarios Google going to respond when we use canonical and redirect for duplicate pages. Let's say A to B are duplicate pages with 95% same content and C Doesn't have same content but context wise similar and priority page we expect to rank for. What happens if we canonical from A to B and set redirect from B to C? What if both A and B are pointed to C with canonical? What if A or B deleted and other one is canonical to C? Note: We can noindex or 301 redirect as they have their own visitors. This is more about showing most relevant content to the audience and avoid duplicate content in search results. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Rel canonical on other page instead of duplicate page. How Google responds?
Hi all, We have 3 pages for same topics. We decided to use rel canonical and remove old pages from search to avoid duplicate content. Out of these 3 pages....1 and 2 type of pages have more similar content where 3 type don't have. Generally we must use rel canonical between 1 and 2. But I am wondering what happens if I canonical between 1 and 3 while 2 has more similar content? Will Google respects it or penalise as we left the most similar page and used other page for canonical. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Duplicate Content on Product Pages with Canonical Tags
Hi, I'm an SEO Intern for a third party wine delivery company and I'm trying to fix the following issue with the site regarding duplicate content on our product pages: Just to give you a picture of what I'm dealing with, the duplicate product pages that are being flagged have URLs that have different Geo-variations and Product-Key Variations. This is what Moz's Site Crawler is seeing as Duplicate content for the URL www.example.com/wines/dry-red/: www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g123456 www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g456789 www.example.com/wines/California/_/N-0 We have loads of product pages with dozens of duplicate content and I'm coming to the conclusion that its the product keys that are confusing google. So we had the web development team put the canonical tag on the pages but still they were being flagged by google. I checked the of the pages and found that all the pages that had 2 canonical tags I understand we should only have one canonical tag in the so I wanted to know if I could just easily remove the second canonical tag and will it solve the duplicate content issue we're currently having? Any suggestions? Thanks -Drew
Algorithm Updates | | drewstorys0 -
Rel=Canonical Tag on Homepage
I have a Rel=canonical Tag (link rel="canonical" href="htttps://homepage.com") on the homepage. Could this possibly have a negative effect? is it necessary?
Algorithm Updates | | JMSCC0 -
Duplicate pages in language versions, noindex in sitemap and canonical URLs in sitemap?
Hi SEO experts! We are currently in the midst of reducing our amount of duplicate titles in order to optimize our SEO efforts. A lot of the "duplicate titles" come from having several language versions of our site. Therefore, I am wondering: 1. If we start using "" to make Google (and others) aware of alternative language versions of a given site/URL, how big a problem will "duplicate titles" then be across our domains/site versions? 2. Is it a problem that we in our sitemap include (many) URL's to pages that are marked with noindex? 3. Are there any problems with having a sitemap that includes pages that includes canonical URL's to other pages? Thanks in advance!
Algorithm Updates | | TradingFloor.com0 -
Rich Snippets: rel=”Author” CTR?
Hi everybody, I want to put on my websites the rel="author" to appear in google search with the image of g+ of my profile. Does anyone have statistics or case history on the effects (positive or negative) that this can have on the CTR? Logically I think it should increase CTR, but I'm not sure that is the case for all sectors. Tnks in advance for your answers
Algorithm Updates | | BizonwebItaly0 -
Should I use canonical tags on my site?
I'm trying to keep this a generic example, so apologies if this is too vague. On my main website, we've always had a duplicate content issue. The main focus of our site is breaking down to specific, brick and mortar locations. We have to duplicate the description of product/service for every geographic location (this is a legal requirement). So for example, you might have the parent "product/service" page targeting the term, and then 100's of sub pages with "product/service San Francisco", "product/service Austin", etc. These pages have identical content except for the geographic location is dynamically swapped out. There is also additional useful content like google map of area, local resources, etc. As I said this was always seen as an SEO issue, specifically you could see in the way that googlebot would crawl pages and how pagerank flowed through the site that having 100's of pages with identical copy and just swapping out the geographic location wasn't seen as good content, however we still always received traffic and conversions for the long tail geographic terms so we left it. Las year, with Panda, we noticed a drop in traffic and thought it was due to this duplicate issue so I added canonical tags to all our geographic specific product/service pages that pointed back to the parent page, that seemed to be received well by google and traffic was back to normal in short order. However, recently what I notice a LOT in our SERP pages is if I type in a geographic specific term, i.e. "product/service san francisco", our deep page with the canonical tag is what google is ranking. Google inserts its own title tag on the SERP page and leaves the description blank as it doesn't index the page due to the canonical tag on the page. Essentially what I think it is rewarding is the site architecture which organizes the content to the specific geo in the URL: site.com/service/location/san-francisco. Other than that there is no reason for it to rank that page. Sorry if this is lengthy, thanks for reading all of that! Essentially my question is, should I keep the canonical tags on the site or take them off since Google insists on ranking the page? If I am ranking already then the potential upside to doing that is ranking higher (we're usually in the 3-6 spot on the result page) and also higher CTR because we can get a description back on our resulting page. The counter argument is I'm already ranking so leave it and focus on other things. Appreciate your thoughts on this!
Algorithm Updates | | edu-SEO0 -
Rel="author" - This could be KickAss!
Google is now encouraging webmasters to attribute content to authors with rel="author". You can read what google has to say about it here and here. A quote from one of google's articles.... When Google has information about who wrote a piece of content on the web, we may look at it as a signal to help us determine the relevance of that page to a user’s query. This is just one of many signals Google may use to determine a page’s relevance and ranking, though, and we’re constantly tweaking and improving our algorithm to improve overall search quality. I am guessing that google might use it like this..... If you have several highly successful articles about "widgets", your author link on each of them will let google know that you are a widget expert. Then when you write future articles about widgets, google will rank them much higher than normal - because google knows you are an authority on that topic. If it works this way the rel="author" attribute could be the equivalent of a big load of backlinks for highly qualified authors. What do you think about this? Valuable? Also, do you think that there is any way that google could be using this as a "content registry" that will foil some attempts at content theft and content spinning? Any ideas welcome! Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | EGOL3