Rel="canonical" again
-
Hello everyone,
I should rel="canonical" my 2 languages website /en urls to the original version without /en. Can I do this from the header.php? Should I rel="canonical" each /en page (eg. en/contatti, en/pagina) separately or can I do all from the general before the website title?
Thanks if someone can help.
-
So, if I understood, my code to have in the header.php of the website should be:
hope im right :)
-
NetLogiQ Thank you.
This answer solves a lot of tricks i had in my head
Thank you very much, I will better study the link you sent, and try to implement on my website. Footers etc. are not translated, so they remain in the original language.. But while reading, I think the solution can fit to my problem.
Thanks again!
Eugenio
-
Hi,
As I see it, you don't need to use a rel="Canonical" because your pages are not duplicates. You have content in italian and translated content in English.
The only thing you need to do is add a rel="alternate" hreflang="x"
This is what Google recommends in case your website is fully translated.
Some example scenarios where
rel="alternate" hreflang="x"
is recommended: For example, you have both German and English versions of each page. Here is how you implement it: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en1. Add a HTML link in the header - section for example:
2. HTTP header. If you publish non-HTML files (like PDFs), you can use an HTTP header to indicate a different language version of a URL: Link: <http: www.yourwebsite.eg="" en="">; rel="alternate"; hreflang="en".</http:>
-
hello james
Thanks for reply. I have original webpages in Italian. Translated webpages are in English. I use a plugin for wordpress, that allows me to translate the whole page (title, etc.) except the url, which will only be different because of the /en before the original page name (in italian, eg /en/contatti)
Widgets, footers etc. are still in Italian, even with translated pages.
I also thought about changing permalinks to be %postname%, so that url may adapt to title (? I think). But Im afraid this website wide urls change will affect my current rankings.
Any suggestion?
-
This is a response to both questions. Rel = canonical will give in this case the English page the authority, that should be the page that ranks well.
The main issue here is if the whole page is translated don't use a canonical tag, if the content stays in English and the Navigation/footer is changed use canonical tag to the English page as this would verge on duplicate content.
-
in fact, now that im thinking:
will not canonical confuse google if trying to rank also for the other language?
What will appear? this is duplicate in a sense, but is complete different content in the other sense.
Please correct me if im wrong..
-
this is what google replied to the same question, not very explicit at all!
"Canonical was not created to say that a language is another language, but that a duplicate page is just a variation and not the original page"
Im lost again
but i also now think that rel canonical is the solution..
-
Just to add in here and simplify the process, Wordpress has a built in function to return the current post/page URL. Make use of 'get_permalink()', with some simply string manipulation you would be able to output the correct canonical tag to your page.
Edit: My PHP is a little rusty at times, but the following should sort you out:
//Check if the page you're on is a single post. If so run below.
if ( is_single() ) {
$url = get_permalink();
$canonical = str_replace('/en', '', $url);echo '';
};
?>As mentioned above, put this into your header.php file (in the template directory), where you would like the canonical tag to appear.
-
He isn't trying to redirect he does want both pages.
Also canonical sitewide is problematic unless you add a customized conditional at the PHP level. He has a wordpress site and can't edit the raw HTML of every page so he needs to have a PHP string at the global level which changes based on page variables.
-
Hello,
1. Do not add a canonical sitewide tag - here is a case study on why http://moz.com/blog/catastrophic-canonicalization Long story short - he deindexed 57% of his website.
2. You could 301 redirect all the pages, instead of adding a rel canonical. If your /en version is a duplicate of the original version, then you could simply add a code that redirects each page to the relevant version, like this: RedirectMatch 301 ^/en/(.*)$ http://www.yourwebsite.en/$1
You can use that solution in the case where you have a website called www.mywebsite.com that has a www.mywebsite.com/en version for a lot of links if not all, and those are the ones indexed in Google. You just add that code into htaccess. So just replace mywebsite with your website.
-
I don't want to post the same answer as I did to your previous question but perhaps there was further clarification that you needed, that I missed!
Put a conditional in the header. Since you are using a wordpress platform you can't go in and manually edit each pages canonical anyway. Using the page if function and a variable you would be able to assign each one it's own rel= from a central head file anyway.
In an ideal situation you'd do each page manually but because of your CMS you need to do a work around
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 Meta Description Tag"
Google is not showing Meta Description for the Keyword Rankings of my website in the SERPs. All of my Keywords Ranking are coming with just two fields. Which are just 1. Title Tag & 2. Page URL. The description tag is missing in it. Here is a proof
Technical SEO | | seobacKindly advice please.
1 -
Implementation of rel="next" & rel="prev"
Hi All, I'm looking to implement rel="next" & rel="prev", so I've been looking for examples. I looked at the source code for the MOZ.com forum, if anyone one is going to do it properly MOZ are. I noticed that the rel="next" & rel="prev" tags have been implemented in the a href tags that link to the previous and next pages rather than in the head. I'm assuming this is fine with Google but in their documentation they state to put the tags in the . Does it matter? Neil.
Technical SEO | | NDAY0 -
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 -
How "Optimised" is my home page content
Good afternoon from 1 degrees C overcast frozen wetherby UK... I've made a number of on page html markup changes to optimise the page for steel suppliers steel stockholders but I'd like to know if there are any other on page improvments I could make for this page http://www.barrettsteel.com/ Im particulary concerned that contnet in in li tags and not p, could this be an issue? And finaaly on the home page a third party developer has slapped a header banner pointing to an external site know as woodberry tools, that cant be good can it? Any insights welcome 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0 -
On-Page Report Card & Rel Canonical
Hello, I ran one of our pages through the On-Page Report Card. Among the results we are getting a lower grade due to the following "critical factor" : Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Explanation If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL. Recommendation We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply. This is for an e-commerce site, and the canonical links are inserted automatically by the cart software. The cart is also creating the canonical url as a relative link, not an absolute URL. In this particular case it's a self-referential link. I've read a ton on this and it seems that this should be okay (I also read that Bing might have an issue with this). Is this really an issue? If so, what is the best practice to pass this critical factor? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | rwilson-seo0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0 -
Rel canonical to dissimilar pages
Is there a penalty for implementing a rel canonical between to pages that don't have the same content? I was told that you should avoid using a rel canonical if the pages score lower than 50-60 on the Similar Page Checker: http://www.webconfs.com/similar-page-checker.php The overall theme of the pages I am considering this for are similar but the actual content is different.
Technical SEO | | ryanwats0 -
"To keyword or not to keyword" in the URL string?
We are debating on whether to use primary keywords in the URL for every page for a new client for the sake of SEO. What is the feeling in the Community on which version is smarter? Version 1: www.abccompany.com/miami-moving-company/about-us www.abccompany.com/miami-moving-company/contact-us etc. etc. Version 2: www.abccompany.com/about-us Thank you for your thoughts!
Technical SEO | | theideapeople0