Rel Canonical Crawl Notices
-
Hello,
Within the Moz report from the crawl of my site, it shows that I had 89 Rel Canonical notices. I noticed that all the pages on my site have a rel canonical tag back to the same page the tag is on. Specific example from my site is as follows: http://www.automation-intl.com/resistance-welding-equipment has a Rel Canonical tag <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.automation-intl.com/resistance-welding-equipment" />. Is this self reference harmless and if so why does it create a notice in the crawl?
Thanks in advance.
-
Thanks Martijn
-
Just some more information about canonical tags, Matt Cutts has said that self-referring canonical tags like the one you described won't hurt your site. However, Bing said that it could negatively impact rankings, and to not put a tag if it lists its own url. If you are getting the majority of traffic from people using Bing (although it's not likely), you might want to consider removing the canonical tag.
Like Martijn said though, canonical tags are fine when used correctly.
-
Hi Eric,
Your canonical URL on this page is totally OK like this, as Moz also mentions in the report about the rel canonicals it's just a notice so not a warning or an error. They just give you a notice that this page is containing a canonical tag to make sure you're aware of this!
Hope this answers your question!
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
-
Moz crawler is not able to crawl my website
Hi, i need help regarding Moz Can't Crawl Your Site i also share screenshot that Moz was unable to crawl your site on Mar 26, 2022. Our crawler was not able to access the robots.txt file on your site. This often occurs because of a server error from the robots.txt. Although this may have been caused by a temporary outage, we recommend making sure your robots.txt file is accessible and that your network and server are working correctly. Typically errors like this should be investigated and fixed by the site webmaster.
Technical SEO | | JasonTorney
my robts.txt also ok i checked it
Here is my website https://whiskcreative.com.au
just check it please as soon as possibe0 -
Can I canonical the same page?
I have a site where I have 500+ Page listing pages and I would like to rel=canonical them to the master page. Example: http://www.example.com//articles?p=18 OR http://www.example.com/articles?p=65 I plan on adding this to the section from of the page template so it goes to all pages - When I do this, I will also add the canonical to the page I am directing the canonical. Is this a bad thing? Or allowed?
Technical SEO | | JoshKimber0 -
Canonicals
We have a client that has his products listed on 20+ different websites, including 4 of his own. Also, he only has 1 of everything, so once he sells it then the product is gone. To battle this duplication issue, plus having a short internet lifespan of less than 4 weeks, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to canonical the products back to the category page. Kind of like using canonical tags on your "used blue widget" and "used red widget" pages back to the "used widgets" page. Would this help with the duplicate content issues? Is this a proper use of a canonical?
Technical SEO | | WhoWuddaThunk0 -
Strange Webmaster Tools Crawl Report
Up until recently I had robots.txt blocking the indexing of my pdf files which are all manuals for products we sell. I changed this last week to allow indexing of those files and now my webmaster tools crawl report is listing all my pdfs as not founds. What is really strange is that Webmaster Tools is listing an incorrect link structure: "domain.com/file.pdf" instead of "domain.com/manuals/file.pdf" Why is google indexing these particular pages incorrectly? My robots.txt has nothing else in it besides a disallow for an entirely different folder on my server and my htaccess is not redirecting anything in regards to my manuals folder either. Even in the case of outside links present in the crawl report supposedly linking to this 404 file when I visit these 3rd party pages they have the correct link structure. Hope someone can help because right now my not founds are up in the 500s and that can't be good 🙂 Thanks is advance!
Technical SEO | | Virage0 -
Odd URL errors upon crawl
Hi, I see this in Google Webmasters, and am now also seeing it here...when a crawl is performed on my site, I get many 500 server error codes for URLs that I don't believe exist. It's as if it sees a normal URL but adds this to it: %3Cdiv%20id= It's like this for hundreds of URLs. Good URL that actually exists http://www.ffr-dsi.com/food-retailing/supplies/ URL that causes error and I have no idea why http://www.ffr-dsi.com/food-retailing/supplies/%3Cdiv%20id= Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Matt10 -
Have a client that migrated their site; went live with noindex/nofollow and for last two SEOMoz crawls only getting one page crawled. In contrast, G.A. is crawling all pages. Just wait?
Client site is 15 + pages. New site had noindex/nofollow removed prior to last two crawls.
Technical SEO | | alankoen1230 -
Internal search : rel=canonical vs noindex vs robots.txt
Hi everyone, I have a website with a lot of internal search results pages indexed. I'm not asking if they should be indexed or not, I know they should not according to Google's guidelines. And they make a bunch of duplicated pages so I want to solve this problem. The thing is, if I noindex them, the site is gonna lose a non-negligible chunk of traffic : nearly 13% according to google analytics !!! I thought of blocking them in robots.txt. This solution would not keep them out of the index. But the pages appearing in GG SERPS would then look empty (no title, no description), thus their CTR would plummet and I would lose a bit of traffic too... The last idea I had was to use a rel=canonical tag pointing to the original search page (that is empty, without results), but it would probably have the same effect as noindexing them, wouldn't it ? (never tried so I'm not sure of this) Of course I did some research on the subject, but each of my finding recommanded one of the 3 methods only ! One even recommanded noindex+robots.txt block which is stupid because the noindex would then be useless... Is there somebody who can tell me which option is the best to keep this traffic ? Thanks a million
Technical SEO | | JohannCR0 -
Canonical tag in preferred and duplicate page
Hi, I have a super spiffy (not) CMS that tends to create some pages at the root level of the site (not where I want it) i.e. www.site.com/page.htm as well as the desired location i.e. www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm . Now obviously a canonical tag inserted into the URL at the undesired location would be the best option, however the source code is exactly the same for both pages (can’t change this) i.e. if I put the canonical tag that reads www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm"/> it will appear in the head section of both pages, the desired URL and the non desired URL. Will a canonical tag inserted into the head section of a the preferred URL directing the search engine spiders pretty much to itself cause more grieft than the solution it offers re duplicate content ? Marc
Technical SEO | | NRMA0
