Help with canonical tag
-
hello-
i got this recommendation
<dl>
<dt>Recommendation</dt>
<dd>Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page</dd>
<dd>from my "report card" and i see also that i have a lot of issues with duplicate content but i really dont have any duplicate content on my site.</dd>
<dd>the crawl has apparently marked every post in my blog as duplicate page content.</dd>
<dd>and the "use canonical tag" suggestion keeps appearing as a fix to my problems.</dd>
<dd>could you please help me with ------How do i create a canonical tag?</dd>
<dd>is it just rel=canonical?</dd>
<dd>and where do i put it?</dd>
<dd>i should put it on every page right?</dd>
<dd>or with CSS my webmaster could probably do it very quickly right?</dd>
<dd>i get the basic concept behind rel=canonical but i cant say i fully understand it -</dd>
<dd>i need some help with regard to how and where this tag should be placed.</dd>
<dd>thanks,</dd>
<dd>erik
</dd><dd>.</dd>
</dl>
-
Yes as long as the "www" is included in the URL of the canonical tag.
-
i hadnt realized this question was answered - i actually forgot i ever asked it - but thank you for the reply - when i use rel=canonical am i telling the SE's that i prefer www. ?
if the answer is yes - then i am all set - and the confusion is over
-
Hey Erik,
This is probably due to URLs of the form http://domain.com not being 301ed to http://www.domain.com.
Depending on how your site was created (e.g. dynamic, static, CMS), it maye be easier to place 301 redirects in your configuration (Assuming you are using Apache, but should be possible in any Web Server). If that is not possible, and you are using a dynamic language for your site, like PHP, you can place 301 redirect code there. Short of these things, you can do as the tool suggested, and create Canonical tags.
-
Hi Erik.
For an example of the canonical tag, right click on this thread's page, choose View Page Source, and look at the top of the document. About the sixth line down you will see a line of code which reads as: . You will also notice the URL of this page matches exactly with that portion of the URL. The code which adds the http://www.seomoz.org prefix is located elsewhere in the code.
I would recommend every page of your site have a canonical tag added. It goes in between the tags of your page's HTML code.
The idea is that there are multiple ways to get to the same page. For example, you can reach this page by typing in "http://www.seomoz.org/q/help-with-canonical-tag" or "http://seomoz.org/q/help-with-canonical-tag" into your browser. Which page is the correct URL? The www version? or the version without the www?
By adding a canonical to your page, you are telling search engines which version you prefer for your site.
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
-
Syntax: 'canonical' vs "canonical" (Apostrophes or Quotes) does it matter?
I have been working on a site and through all the tools (Screaming Frog & Moz Bar) I've used it recognizes the canonical, but does Google? This is the only site I've worked on that has apostrophes. rel='canonical' href='https://www.example.com'/> It's apostrophes vs quotes. Could this error in syntax be causing the canonical not to be recognized? rel="canonical"href="https://www.example.com"/>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ccox10 -
Rel Canonical attribute order
So the position of the attribute effect the rel canonical tags' ability to function? is the way I see it across multiple documents and websites. Having a discussion with someone in the office and there is a website with it set up as: Will that cause any problems? The website is inquestion still has both pages indexed within Google using the SITE:domain.com/product as well as SITE:domain.com/category/product
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jasondexter0 -
Help - Lost Ranking - What did I screw up?!
Hi, We're working with a local service provider with a location specific keyword (not a real example: "orlando plumbing contractors"). Background:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AaronHenry
In recent history the client updated a new site design and upgraded from Joomla 1.5 to Joomla 2.5. Of course there were duplicate content issues which have been resolved with the help of AceSEF. Duplicate content, title tags, and other content issues are handled as soon as they appear in GWT or MOZ. Additionally, a high number of backlinks were lost when the latest Google update hit. Many of these sites were of sites that no longer existed or were spammy and flushed out. Some were lost due to the previous SEO firm literally removing backlinks and switching them to their new client (seo firm was putting all of the work the client paid for under their name to control everything). Current Situation: The backlink loss seems to have been stopped (hopefully) because we are using a new strategy that relies solely on the quality of the links, surrounding text, varied anchor text, relevancy, etc.) However, we tried an experiment on just one of the clients keywords. That experiment seems to have blown up in our faces evidently. The landing page for the location specific keyword has dropped from the index completely (it seems), but only when searching broad. When using exact match with quotes like the example quoted above ("orlando plumbing contractors") the landing page appears, but several ranks lower. We were ranked yesterday 6/23/13, but as of today 6/24/13 are no longer ranked. On broad matches, non-relevant sites and even a site that shows only a broken server configuration is outranking the client (they appear for the broad search, but the client does not). What Was Done
We recently created a press release for and posted it on a press release site. We then created a link back to the landing page (exact match anchor text). We posted the PR article to several social sites (Google plus, folkd, delicious, twitter, stumble upon, diigo). We also created a blog article (on-site) on site for that, creating links back to the landing page (the links all had exact anchor text). We posted that blog article to social news sites (facebook, stumble, delicious) and included a ping. The PR article was manually rewritten and posted to the PR site (we had to make 2 versions of the PR; one for the blog and one for the PR site). The Result
The client ending up dropping off the broad search rankings, but only slipped a few for "exact match" (with quotes). The PR article that was created is now ranked on page 3 for the board keyword and is still beat by non working sites. We suspect that the exact anchor text could be causing this problem. Anyone else have an idea (we're scratching our heads and trying not to freak out at the same time).0 -
Advanced Title Tags
Looking for some advanced help here. I've been reading a lot of conflicting information on this, and I am hoping someone can clear this up. My question is regarding length and complexity of title tags. For example, my top level keywords are: IT Support, IT Services, IT Outsourcing, Help Desk, etc. I also have pages for many modified versions ex: IT Support Services, Managed IT Services, etc. I have robust pages for each. Should my title tag be: IT Support | CSM Corp. - Simple IT Support Company | CSM Corp. (Picks up a longer tail) or IT Support | Secondary Keyword | CSM Corp. Does adding secondary keywords dilute the strength of the primary keyword? If long is preferable, can someone give me an example using "IT Support"?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CsmBill0 -
Canonical url question
i just search seomoz tooll it say duplicate content for www.mysite.com and www.mysite.com/index.php should i use canonical url for this ? is yes then is this right ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
Should I block wordpress archive and tag?
I use Wodpress and Wordpress SEO by Yoast. I've set ip up to add noindex meta tag on all archive and tag pages. I don't think its useful to include thoses pages in search results because there's quite a few. Especialy the tag archive. Should I consider anything else or change my mind? What do you think? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Akeif0 -
Emergency Help...
Hello All, I'm trying to get a better handle on this, but any help would be hugely appreciated. Per my Pro account, i just found out that the keyword i was severely trying to rank for "Boston Wedding Phot*grapher" i just declined by over 40 positions. Just last week i was in the #3 position. Needless to say, this is extremely bad. I feel sick from it. This is my livelyhood. I recently hired a 'so-called' SEO expert to look at it, but i'm having my doubts. I'm using a php based site with a wordpress blog. He added a bunch of 301 redirects from pages that the crawler was complaining about to my .htaccess file. He also installed the following plugins: Link Juice Keeper NoFollow Free The SEO Rich Snippets Udinra All Image Sitemap WP Robots Txt WP-PageNavi Add Meta Tags These are essentially the only changes made. Does anyone see anything blaring and/or obvious? I could really really use some help. My blog link is : http://www.symbolphoto.com/blog/ I'm assuming it's the blog because that's where most of my site content is located. Any advice is hugely appreciated. TIA.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | symbolphoto0 -
Canonical, 301 or code a workaround?
Hi, Recently I've been trying to tackle an issue on one of my websites. I have a site with around 400 products and 550 pages total. I've been pruning some weaker pages and pages with shallow content, and it's been working really well. My current issue is this: There are about 20 store brands of 6 products on my site that each have their own page. They are identical products just re-branded. Writing content for each of these pages has been difficult, as it's a fairly dry product too. So I have around 120 pages of dry content that is unique but not much different from one another. I want to consolidate but I am not sure how yet. Here is what I am thinking: 1. 301 - I pick one product page as the master, 301 all the other duplicate products to it and then make one page of great content that encompasses all of them. If the 301 juice gets diluted over time I might miss out on some long tails, but I could also gain a lot more from a great content page with 500+ words of really good content as opposed to pages with 150-250 words of just so so content. 2. Canonical - Similar to above. I pick a master page and canonical the other pages to it. Then I could use the great content on all the pages, and still have pages for the specific products. The pages might not show up in search engines but would still be searchable on my site. 3. Coded solution - In my CMS I could always make a workaround where the products still appear on the brands page (just their name with a link to the product page) but all the links direct to a master page. I realize all the solutions are fairly similar, although I am not sure which is ideal. Option 3 is the most expensive/time consuming but it would drop my page total down to around 450 pages. For a while now (dating back to before Panda) I've been trying to get rid of the low quality and outdated product pages so I could focus on the more popular and active pages. Dropping my page total would also help in the SEO efforts as the sheer volume of pages that need links right now is high, and obviously the less pages I have the more time I can spend on each page (content and link building). So what do you think? Should I do any of the 3, a combination of the 3 or something different? Cheers, Vinnie
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vforvinnie0