Canonical URL Tag: Confusing Use Case
-
We have a webpage that changes content each evening at mid-night -- let's call this page URL /foo. This allows a user to bookmark URL /foo and obtain new content each day. In our case, the content on URL /foo for a given day is the same content that exists on another URL on our website. Let's say the content for November 5th is URL /nov05, November 6th is /nov06 and so on. This means on November 5th, there are two pages on the website that have almost identical content -- namely /foo and /nov05. This is likely a duplication of content violation in the view of some search engines.
Is the Canonical URL Tag designed to be used in this situation? The page /nov05 is the permanent page containing the content for the day on the website. This means page /nov05 should have a Canonical Tag that points to itself and /foo should have a Canonical Tag that points to /nov05. Correct?
Now here is my problem. The page at URL /foo is the fourth highest page authority on our 2,000+ page website. URL /foo is a key part of the marketing strategy for the website. It has the second largest number of External Links second only to our home page. I must tell you that I'm concerned about using a Cononical URL Tag that points away from the URL /foo to a permanent page on the website like /nov05. I can think of a lot of things negative things that could happen to the rankings of the page by making a change like this and I am not sure what we would gain. Right now /foo has a Canonical URL Tag that points to itself. Does anyone believe we should change this? If so, to what and why?
Thanks for helping me think this through! Greg
-
Thank you for your responses Davanur and Kurt. The page /foo is copied a great deal across the Internet. I believe the Canonical Tag pointing back to our website helps as Davanur mentioned. The content of the page is fairly short -- only one screen. Kurt's idea of using an abstract on /foo and linking to /nov05 would work if the page contained more content.
I believe we will leave things as they are based on these two responses. It is easy for us to change these design points (the use of Canonical on every page for example) with little effort as the website is dynamically generated.
Thanks again! Greg
-
I agree with Devanur and will add another possible solution.
What if you only put an abstract on the /foo page? That way you only have a compelling description/summary of the which is on the dated page, /nov05, and the full content is on the dated page. There would be no duplication then, though it would be an extra step for users.
Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Hi Greg, first things first.
The page /nov05 is the permanent page containing the content for the day on the website. This means page /nov05 should have a Canonical Tag that points to itself and /foo should have a Canonical Tag that points to /nov05. Correct?
For the page /nov05, why would you need to place a canonical tag? Canonical tag has to be placed on a non-canonical page (page that is not preferred to appear in the search results) pointing to the canonical page which is the preferred one. In case of a home page where it can have multiple variations like, www, non-www, index.html etc, you can go for a canonical tag pointing to itself. In case where someone copies your page as it is along with source code, a canonical tag pointing to itself can be beneficial as no matter where it is, the page would be pointing to the original page on your website. But in general, you don't need to have a canonical tag pointing to the same page on which it resides. This is not mandatory.
Coming to your original issue at hand. It is not a sin to have duplicate content on the website and the intention behind it matters way more than the duplication itself. I don't think you are doing anything wrong here. In a situation like yours, considering the importance of the page /foo, you should not be placing a canonical tag on it. The best solution would be to leave it as it is and don't bother about the issue. Search engines like Google are very well aware of situations like this and can handle very well. Those were my two cents in this regard.
Best,
Devanur Rafi
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
-
Rank regional homepages using canonicals and hreflangs
Here’s a situation I’ve been puzzling with for some time: The situation
Technical SEO | | dmduco
Please consider an international website targeting 3 regions. The real site has more regions, but I simplified the case for this question. screenshot1.png There is no default language. The content for each regional version is meant for that region only. The website.eu page is dynamic. When there is no region cookie, the page is identical to website.eu/nl/ (because Netherlands is the most important region) When there is a region cookie (set by a modal), there is a 302 redirect to the corresponding regional homepage What we want
We want regional Google to index the correct regional homepages (eg. website.eu/nl/ on google.nl), instead of website.eu.
Why? Because visitors surfing to website.eu sometimes tend to ignore the region modal and therefor browse the wrong version.
For this, I set up canonicals and hreflangs as described below: screenshot2.png The problem
It’s 40 days now since the above hreflangs and canonicals have been setup, but Google is still ranking website.eu instead of the regional homepages.
Search console’s report for website.eu: screenshot3.png Any ideas why Google doesn’t respect our canonical? Maybe I’m overlooking something in this setup (combination of hreflangs and canonicals might be confusing)? Should I remove the hreflangs on the dynamic page, because there is no self-referencing hreflang? Or maybe it’s because website.eu has gathered a lot of backlinks over the years, whereas the regional homepages have much less, which might be why Google chooses to ig nore the canonical signals? Or maybe it’s a matter of time and I just need to wait longer? Note: I’m aware the language subfolders (eg. /be_nl) are not according to Google’s recommendations. But I’ve seen similar setups (like adobe.com and apple.com) where the regional homepage is showing ok. Any help appreciated!0 -
Canonical Tags for Legacy Duplicate Content
I've got a lot of duplicate pages, especially products, and some are new but most have been like this for a long time; up to several years. Does it makes sense to use a canonical tag pointing to one master page for each product. Each page is slightly different with a different feature and includes maybe a sentence or two that is unique but everything else is the same.
Technical SEO | | AmberHanson0 -
Confused about repeated occurences of URL/essayorg/topic/ showing up as 404 errors in our site logs
Working on a Wordpress website, https://thedoctorwithin.comScanning the site’s 404 errors, I’m seeing a lot of searches for URL/essayorg/topic, coming from Bingbot, as well as other spiders (Google, OpensiteExlorer). We get at least 200 of these irrelevant requests per week. Seems like each topic that follows /essayorg/ is unique. Some include typos: /dissitation/Haven't done a verification to make sure the spiders are who they say they are, yet.Almost seems like there are many links ‘in the wild’ intended for Essay.Org that are being directed towards the site I’m working on.I've considered redirecting any requests for URL/essayorg/ to our sitemap… figuring that might encourage further spidering of actual site content. Is redirection to our sitemap xml file a good idea, or might doing so have unintended consequences? Interested in suggestions about why this might be occurring. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | linkjuiced0 -
Is this a true rel=nofollow for the whole article? "printfriendly.com" is part of the URL which is why I'm confused.
Is the rel=nofollow tag on this article a true NoFollow for the whole article (and all the external links to other sites in the article), or is it just for a specific part of the page? Here is the article: https://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/americans-are-not-ready-for-retirement/ The reason I ask is that I'm confused about the code since it has "printfriendly.com..." as a portion of the URL. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | dklarse0 -
Clean URL vs. Parameter URL and Using Canonical URL...That's a Mouthfull!
Hi Everyone, I a currently migrating a Magento site over to Shopify Plus and have a question about best practices for using the canonical URL. There is a competitor that I believe is not doing it the correct way, so I want to make sure my way is the better choice. With 'Vendor Pages' in Shopify, they show up looking like: https://www.campusprotein.com/collections/vendors?q=Cellucor. Not as clean. Problem is that Shopify also creates https://www.campusprotein.com/collections/cellucor. Same products, same page, just a different more clean URL. I am seeing both indexed in Google. What I want to do is basically create a canonical URL from the URL with the parameter that points to the clean URL. The two pages are very similar. The only difference is that the clean URL page has some additional content at the top of the page. I would say the two pages are 90% the same. Do you see any issue with that?
Technical SEO | | vetofunk0 -
Redirecting Canonical Hostnames
Hi, I want to rewrite all the url pages of "site.com" to "www.site.com". I read the moz redirection article and i concluded that this would be the best approach. RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.seomoz.org [NC]
Technical SEO | | bigrat95
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.seomoz.org/$1 [L,R=301]. But i recieved this error: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@localhost and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. I tried this rewrite too... RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [L,R=301] It worked but it just rewriting my domain** "site.com"** and not all the subs "site.com/fr/example.php" to "www.site.com" Why it doesn't work properly, it seem to be easy... Could it be a hosting problem? Is there another way to do it? <address> </address> <address> </address> <address> </address> <address> </address>0 -
Canonical tag problem
Hello I'm newbie here i dont know very well about seo but i would like to ask your help? I'm running report about my website and on report I dont have canonical tag on my products. But if i check from on page report link by link it shows that I have canonical tag. At the same time if i check my pages code i can see below canonical tag codes? Do we use canonical tags wrong? What can cause this different information? Could you please help me? Is it important to use canonical tag beginning or end? I'm using now trial version and trying to understand report is correct what is my mistakes. Thanks in advance My code is
Technical SEO | | FRUTIKO0
