Canonical nightmare! Help!
-
Hi all, I really hope someone can help, I'm new to Moz and think I've done something really silly.
Last night I changed some settings in Magento for how it handles Category paths and Canonicals to those that most SEO people recommend. Everything looked fine and products that had 4 URL's all seemed now to have only one.
I then tried the dropdown menu on iOS and it just didn't work (worked fine on PC). In a panic I changed the settings back, cleared cache etc...
Now I try to grade a page in Moz and I'm scoring an F on every one, critical errors everywhere! Top of the list is that it's returning HTTP code 200.
Has anyone heard of navigation that can be broken on only iOS or can anyone shed any light on how the canonical changes could have affected navigation?
Thanks, any help or suggestions really welcome.
-
Yeah, a status code of 200 is generally a good thing. Could you direct message me through the site and tell me which campaign you're seeing the errors on. I can log in and try to take a deeper look.
-
JM67,
Mike is probably on to something. 200 status is usually followed by OK which means you are good to go.
I would suspect that you may have a different issue when it comes to MOZ page rank. When you go from a good page rank to an F rank It usually means your are somehow linking the wrong Keyword to the page. So in your case check for something as simple as having "HTTPS" vs "HTTP" or www version vs non www. That makes all the difference.
Allen
-
I'd have to assume the changes in Magento broke your site because adding Re="canonical" tags wouldn't have done anything like what you're describing and with such intense speed considering you did this the other night.
Also a 200 HTTP Status is the Response Code for OK... which is what live and functioning pages should return.
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
-
80% Spam Score!! Can Any One Help?
I have a question about the Spam Score for my website .
Moz Bar | | PoppyP
I have run a Spam Score for https://www.poppyporter.co.uk
It has come back with an 80% score because there are 4 links that are apparently from my poppyporter.com domain each with a 69% spam score.
This poppyporter.com domain is parked and I have no idea why there are links from it. There are no pages there and there never have been, I've never used the poppyporter.com domain only poppyporter.co.uk.
I don't understand why there are links there and why they are making my Spam Score so high.
Will they affect my site's SEO? Do I need to worry about them? If so how do I get rid of them?
Can you help?
Thanks very much Poppy1 -
Page Grader states "includes Canonical Tag" but it's not in the page source at all
I've ran it multiple times and changed other things it picked up on so not sure where it's getting the canonical tag is included even though it isn't?
Moz Bar | | Wana-Ryd0 -
Spam Score Help Needed!
Hi guys, Basically, long story short our site currently has a spam score of 5%, which is heading into dangerous territory. We have been looking into why this might be and the more we've looked into it the more stumped we've become. We compared our inbound links to our competitors, who's spam score currently stands at just 1%, and found that we actually had a smaller proportion of spammy inbound links compared to theirs - and yet our score is 5x higher. We have looked into disavowal, but this seems like a high-risk venture and something of a last resort so we'd rather see if there's anything else we can do about this before we press the button. Are there any other factors we need to look in to aside from inbound links and domains? Could it be something to do with our site architecture? For example we have a very high number of internal links (102,011, 94.1% are followed) compared to our competitors. This could qualify us as a 'large' site, and when paired with the fact that we only have 640 inbound links could be a big red flag to Google? Any help you'd be willing to provide us on this would be much appreciated!
Moz Bar | | rawdog0 -
Can someone help me?
I need to use the competition analysis tool efficiently. I don't want to choose too big or too small competition, I am a startup affiliate website with 0 traffic. Is there guidelines for doing this?
Moz Bar | | hassan.houta0 -
Canonical in Moz crawl report
I'm wondering if the moz bot is seeing my rel="canonical" on my pages. There are 2 notices that are bothering me: Overly Dynamic URL Rel Canonical Overly Dynamic URL - This notice is being generated by urls with query strings. On the main page I have the rel="canonical" tag in the header. So every page with the query string has the canonical tag that points to the page that should be indexed. So my question...Why the notice? Isn't this being handled properly with the canonical tag? I know I can use my robots.txt or the tool in Google search console but is it really necessary when I have the canonical on every page? Here is one of the links that has the "Overly Dynamic URL" notice, as you can see the the canonical in the header points to the page without the query string: https://www.vistex.com/services/training/traditional-classroom/registration-form/?values=true&course-title=DMP101 – Data Maintenance Pricing – Business Processes&date=March 14, 2016 Rel Canonical - Every page in my report has this notice "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical". I'm using the rel="canonical" tag on all of my pages by default. Is the report suggesting that I don't do this? Or is it suggesting that I should? Again...why the notice?
Moz Bar | | Brando160 -
Canonicals in crawling reports
The crawling reports gives info about several meta data missing, what about the lack of a canonical tag? This would be nice too... and images without alt tag (or empty).
Moz Bar | | KBC0 -
Crwal errors : duplicate content even with canonical links
Hi I am getting some errors for duplicate content errors in my crawl report for some of our products www.....com/brand/productname1.html www.....com/section/productname1.html www.....com/productname1.html we have canonical in the header for all three pages <link rel="canonical" href="www....com productname1.html"=""></link rel="canonical" href="www....com>
Moz Bar | | phes0 -
Rel Canonical and Moz Crawl
we have Rel Canonical tags set up on a few pages. When viewing the page source, the tags are correct. However, Moz Crawl results show the opposite. for example the page source, correctly shows, URL X with a Rel canonical Tag of URL Y
Moz Bar | | S.S.N
but.. Moz crawl is showing URL Y with a Rel Canonical Tag of URL X ..any thoughts why this would happen? which should i trust more?0