Rel Canonical Link on the Canonical Page
-
Is there a problem with placing a rel=canonical link on the canonical page - in addition to the duplicate pages? For example, would that create create an endless loop where the canonical page keeps referring to itself?
Two examples that are troubling me are:
- My home site is www.1099pro.com which is exactly the same as www.1099pro.com/index.asp (all updates to the home page are made by updating the index.asp page). I want www.1099pro.com/index.asp to have the rel=canonical link to point to my standard homepage www.1099pro.com but any update that I make on the index page is automatically incorporated into www.1099pro.com as well. I don't have access to my hosting web server and any updates I make have to be done to the specific landing pages/templates.
- I am also creating a new website that could possible have pages with duplicate content in the future. I would like to already include the rel=canonical link on the standard canonical page even though there is not duplicate content yet.
Any help really would be appreciated. I've read a ton of articles on the subject but none really define whether or not it is ok to have the rel=canonical link on both the canonical page and the duplicate pages. The closest explanation was in a MOZ article that it was ok but the answer was fuzzy.
-Mike
-
Thanks CleverPhD! That was the decisive answer I've been looking for
-
I forgot to add. I use a canonical on all my printer friendly versions pointing to the original page and then I have a self canonical on that page - again on thousands of pages. AOK.
-
No problemo. Take a deep breath. In your scenario
has a canonical link to
and since they are duplicates
will canonical link to
That is no problemo, double aok, extra sprinkles on top. Have a page canonical link to itself is actually a best practice. If anyone scrapes your home page - you have a link back to your site and for other good reasons. I have a site with thousands of pages that self canonical and it is no problemo.
http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
From Dr. Pete
" ... is it alright to put a rel=canonical tag on the canonical version of the URL, pointing back to itself? Practically speaking – yes, it is, but you don't have to. Early on, there were hints that both Google and Bing preferred that you not overuse rel=canonical. Over time, though, their stances seemed to soften, and I’ve seen no evidence in recent history of a properly used, self-referencing canonical causing any harm.
This is often just a practical issue – many URLs share common templates, and the code needed to display a rel=canonical tag on just the duplicates and not the canonical version of a page can get messy and increase your chance of mistakes. Personally, I believe that the search engines recognized the reality most webmasters face and adjusted their initial, conservative stance"
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
-
Pages with similar content: Redirect or Canonical? Or something else?
We have two pages on our site with similar content. One was originally a landing page for a marketing campaign, somewhat of a micro-site feel with a lot of content. We recently optimized another page on the site with much of the same content from the original landing page/micro-site. In order to avoid duplicate content, and to let Google know our authority page is the new page, we're wondering what is best practice: Should we... 301 redirect the old page? No index the old page? Keep both pages and use a canonical to tell Google the new page is authority? Or something else?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seo_1234b0 -
Duplicate Content Errors new website. How do you know which page to put the rel canonical tag on?
I am having problems with duplicate content. This is a new website and all the pages have the same page and domain rank, the following is an example of the homepage. How do you know which page to use the canonical tag on? http://medresourcesupply.com/index.php http://medresourcesupply.com/ Would this be the correct way to use this? Here is another example where Moz says these are duplicates. I can't figure out why because they have different url's and content. http://medresourcesupply.com/clutching_at_the_throat http://medresourcesupply.com/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=detailed_specfications &category=Main
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | artscube.biz0 -
Best format for E-Commerce Pages in Title Text / Link Text & Markup
Hello Please comment on which you think is best SEO practice for each & any comments on link juice following through. Title text ( on Product Page ) <title>Brandname ProductName</title>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | s_EOgi_Bear
OR
<title>ProductName by Brandname</title> on category page <a <span="" class="html-attribute-name">itemprop="name" href="[producturl]">ProductName</a>
<a <span="" class="html-attribute-name">itemprop="brand" href="[brandurl]>BrandName</a> OR <a <span class="html-attribute-name">itemprop="name" href="[producturl]">BrandName ProductName
( Leave Brand Link Out)</a <span> Product Page <a itemprop="name" href="[producturl]">ProductName
<a itemprop="brand" href="[brandurl]>BrandName</a itemprop="brand" href="[brandurl]></a itemprop="name" href="[producturl]"> OR <a itemprop="name" href="[producturl]">BrandName ProductName
( Leave Brand Link Out)</a itemprop="name" href="[producturl]"> Thoughts?0 -
Do I have to many internal links which is diluting link juice to less important pages
Hello Mozzers, I was looking at my homepage and subsequent category landing pages on my on my eCommerce site and wondered whether I have to many internal links which could in effect be diluting link juice to much of the pages I need it to flow. My homepage has 266 links of which 114 (43%) are duplicate links which seems a bit to much to me. One of my major competitors who is a national company has just launched a new site design and they are only showing popular categories on their home page although all categories are accessible from the menu navigation. They only have 123 links on their home page. I am wondering whether If I was to not show every category on my homepage as some of them we don't really have any sales from and only concerntrate on popular ones there like my competitors , then the link juice flowing downwards in the site would be concerntated as I would have less links for them to flow ?... Is that basically how it works ? Is there any negatives with regards to duplicate links on either home or category landing page. We are showing both the categories as visual boxes to select and they are also as selectable links on the left of a page ? Just wondered how duplicate links would be treated? Any thoughts greatly appreciated thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Duplicate Title tags even with rel=canonical
Hello, We were having duplicate content in our blog (a replica of each post automatically was done by the CMS), until we recently implemented a rel=canonical tag to all the duplicate posts (some 5 weeks ago). So far, no duplicate content were been found, but we are still getting duplicate title tags, though the rel=canonical is present. Any idea why is this the case and what can we do to solve it? Thanks in advance for your help. Tej Luchmun
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | luxresorts0 -
SEO on page content links help
I run a website at the bottom we have scroller box which the old SEO guy used to contain all of the crap content so we can rank for keywords not on the page and put all of the links in to spread the link juice into the other inner category pages (some of these pages are only listed on our innerpages otherwise). We are trying to remove this content and add decent content above the fold with relevant long tail keywords in (it is currently decent but could do with expanding if we are removing this large chunk of text in theSEO box and some long tail keywords will be missing if we just remove it) we can add a couple of links into this new content but will struggle to list the category pages not on the left hand navigation. If we were to list all of the pages in the left hand nav would we dilute the power going to the main pages currently or would we be in the same position we are now? For example at the minute I would say the power is mainly going to the left hand nav links and then a small amount of power to the links in the SEO content if we put these into the nav will it not dilute the power to the main pages. Thank you for your time and hopefully your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
How Google treat internal links with rel="nofollow"?
Today, I was reading about NoFollow on Wikipedia. Following statement is over my head and not able to understand with proper manner. "Google states that their engine takes "nofollow" literally and does not "follow" the link at all. However, experiments conducted by SEOs show conflicting results. These studies reveal that Google does follow the link, but does not index the linked-to page, unless it was in Google's index already for other reasons (such as other, non-nofollow links that point to the page)." It's all about indexing and ranking for specific keywords for hyperlink text during external links. I aware about that section. It may not generate in relevant result during any keyword on Google web search. But, what about internal links? I have defined rel="nofollow" attribute on too many internal links. I have archive blog post of Randfish with same subject. I read following question over there. Q. Does Google recommend the use of nofollow internally as a positive method for controlling the flow of internal link love? [In 2007] A: Yes – webmasters can feel free to use nofollow internally to help tell Googlebot which pages they want to receive link juice from other pages
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommercePundit
_
(Matt's precise words were: The nofollow attribute is just a mechanism that gives webmasters the ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity. Plenty of other mechanisms would also work (e.g. a link through a page that is robot.txt'ed out), but nofollow on individual links is simpler for some folks to use. There's no stigma to using nofollow, even on your own internal links; for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery. By the way, the nofollow meta tag does that same thing, but at a page level.) Matt has given excellent answer on following question. [In 2011] Q: Should internal links use rel="nofollow"? A:Matt said: "I don't know how to make it more concrete than that." I use nofollow for each internal link that points to an internal page that has the meta name="robots" content="noindex" tag. Why should I waste Googlebot's ressources and those of my server if in the end the target must not be indexed? As far as I can say and since years, this does not cause any problems at all. For internal page anchors (links with the hash mark in front like "#top", the answer is "no", of course. I am still using nofollow attributes on my website. So, what is current trend? Will it require to use nofollow attribute for internal pages?0