<rel canonical="">and Query Strings</rel>
-
How are you supposed to <rel canonical="" tag="">a page with a query string that has already been indexed? It's not like you're serving that page from a CMS where you have an original page with content to add to the head tag.</rel>
For example....
Original Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php
Query String Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php?src=FrontDoorBox
Would adding the <rel canonical="" tag="">to the original page, referencing itself, be the solution so that the next time the original page is crawled, the bot will know that the previously indexed URL with query string should actually be the "original"? That's the only solution I can come up with because there's no way to find the query string rendered page to tag with the canonical.....</rel>
-
The page being indexed already is not a factor. You want to add the tag to the primary page and all variant pages with parameters. The next time those pages are crawled, Google will see the canonical tag and adjust the URL accordingly.
Your question is difficult because the answer would depend on how your CMS is coded.
Generally there is a template which is used to create the pages. Your template would need to be modified using a conditional statement to provide the canonical tag for URLs with parameters. This would be your best solution.
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
-
Do Query Strings strip away SEO value?
Hopefully a yes or no answer to this one... If I have a link pointing to my site as below, is the SEO value stripped away because of the query in the URL? https://mysite.co.uk/?WT.mc_id=Test The above mentioned page also has the canonical tag: on it.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Marketing_Today0 -
"Leeching" backlinks...yes or no?
A lot of websites, by virtue of practicality, will link to wikipedia articles to explain certain concepts. Would it be worthwhile to reach out to those websites and ask them to change the link to a different resource if that resource is a much better alternative than the wikipedia article? And how would you approach this? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mack-ayache0 -
Best to Fix Duplicate Content Issues on Blog If URLs are Set to "No-Index"
Greetings Moz Community: I purchased a SEMrush subscription recently and used it to run a site audit. The audit detected 168 duplicate content issues mostly relating to blog posts tags. I suspect these issues may be due to canonical tags not being set up correctly. My developer claims that since these blog URLs are set to "no-index" these issues do not need to be corrected. My instinct would be to avoid any risk with potential duplicate content. To set up canonicalization correctly. In addition, even if these pages are set to "no-index" they are passing page rank. Further more I don't know why a reputable company like SEMrush would consider these errors if in fact they are not errors. So my question is, do we need to do anything with the error pages if they are already set to "no-index"? Incidentally the site URL is www.nyc-officespace-leader.com. I am attaching a copy of the SEMrush audit. Thanks, Alan BarjWaO SqVXYMy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Is a Rel Canonical Sufficient or Should I 'NoIndex'
Hey everyone, I know there is literature about this, but I'm always frustrated by technical questions and prefer a direct answer or opinion. Right now, we've got recanonicals set up to deal with parameters caused by filters on our ticketing site. An example is that this: http://www.charged.fm/billy-joel-tickets?location=il&time=day relcanonicals to... http://www.charged.fm/billy-joel-tickets My question is if this is good enough to deal with the duplicate content, or if it should be de-indexed. Assuming so, is the best way to do this by using the Robots.txt? Or do you have to individually 'noindex' these pages? This site has 650k indexed pages and I'm thinking that the majority of these are caused by url parameters, and while they're all canonicaled to the proper place, I am thinking that it would be best to have these de-indexed to clean things up a bit. Thanks for any input.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | keL.A.xT.o0 -
Fixed "lower-case/mixed-case" Internal Links causing duplicate- Now What?
Hi, So after a site re-launch, Moz crawled it and reported over 150 duplicate content errors. It was determined that it was because of incorrect uses of capitalization in internal links. Using screaming frog, I found all (500+) internal links and fixed them to match the actual URL. Now the site is100% consistent across the board as best I can tell. I am unsure what to do next though. We launched the site with all the internal link errors, and now many of the pages that are indexed and ranked are with the incorrect URL form. Some have said to use a canonical tag. But how can I use a canonical tag on a page doesn't even exist? Same thing with 301. Can I redirect /examplepage to /ExamplePage if only /ExamplePage actually exists? I would really appreciate some advice on what to do. After I fixed the internal links, I waited a week and Moz crawled the site again and reported all the same errors, and then even more. All capitalization. Seems like it's a mess. After I did another Screaming Frog crawl, it showed no duplicates, so I know I was successful in fixing the internals. Help!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yogitrout10 -
"Starting Over" With A New Domain & 301 Redirect
Hello, SEO Gurus. A client of mine appears to have been hit on a non-manual/algorithm penalty. The penalty appears to be Penguin-like, and the client never received any message (not that that means it wasn't manual). Prior to my working with her, she engaged in all kinds of SEO fornication: spammy links on link farms, shoddy article marketing, blog comment spam -- you name it. There are simply too many tens of thousands of these links to have removed. I've done some disavowal, but again, so much of the link work is spam. She is about to launch a new site, and I am tempted to simply encourage her to buy a new domain and start over. She competes in a niche B2B sector, so it is not terribly competitive, and with solid content and link earning, I think she'd be ok. Here's my question: If we were to 301 the old website to the new one, would the flow of page rank outperform any penalty associated with the site? (The old domain only has a PR of 2). Anyone like my idea of starting over, rather than trying to "recover?" I thank you all in advance for your time and attention. I don't take it for granted.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RCNOnlineMarketing0 -
Rel=canonical tag on original page?
Afternoon All,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jellyfish-Agency
We are using Concrete5 as our CMS system, we are due to change but for the moment we have to play with what we have got. Part of the C5 system allows us to attribute our main page into other categories, via a page alaiser add-on. But what it also does is create several url paths and duplicate pages depending on how many times we take the original page and reference it in other categories. We have tried C5 canonical/SEO add-on's but they all seem to fall short. We have tried to address this issue in the most efficient way possible by using the rel=canonical tag. The only issue is the limitations of our cms system. We add the canonical tag to the original page header and this will automatically place this tag on all the duplicate pages and in turn fix the problem of duplicate content. The only problem is the canonical tag is on the original page as well, but it is referencing itself, effectively creating a tagging circle. Does anyone foresee a problem with the canonical tag being on the original page but in turn referencing itself? What we have done is try to simplify our duplicate content issues. We have over 2500 duplicate page issues because of this aliasing add-on and want to automate the canonical tag addition, rather than go to each individual page and manually add this tag, so the original reference page can remain the original. We have implemented this tag on one page at the moment with 9 duplicate pages/url's and are monitoring, but was curious if people had experienced this before or had any thoughts?0 -
Query / Discussion on Subdomain and Root domain passing authority etc
I've seen Rands video on subdomains and best pratices at
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-the-microsite-mistake
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/understanding-root-domains-subdomains-vs-subfolders-microsites I have a question/theory though and it is related to an issue I am having. We have built our website, and now we are looking at adding 3rd party forums and blogs etc (all part of one CMS). The problem is these need to to be on a seperate subdomain to work correctly (I won't go into the specific IT details but this is what I have been advised by my IT guru's). So I can have something like:
http://cms.mysite.com/forum/ Obviously after reading Rands post and other stuff this is far from ideal. However I have another Idea - run the CMS from root and the main website from the www. subdomain. EG
www.mysite.com
mysite.com/blog Now my theory is that because so many website (possibly the majority - especially smaller sites) don't use 301 redirects between root and www. that search engines may make an exception in this case and treat them both as the same domain, so it could possibly be a way of getting round the issue. This is just a theory of mine, based solely on my thoughts that there are so many websites out there that don't 301 root to www. or vice versa, that possibly it would be in the SE's self interest to make an exception and count these as one domain, not 2. What are your thoughts on this and has there been any tests done to see if this is the case or not? Thanks0