Using Canonical Attribute
-
Hi All,
I am hoping you can help me?
We have recently migrated to the Umbraco CMS and now have duplicate versions of the same page showing on different URLs. My understanding is that this is one of the major reasons for the rel=canonical tag.
So am I right in saying that if I add the following to the page that I want to rank then this will work?
I'm just a little worried as I have read some horror stories of people implementing this attribute incorrectly and getting into trouble.
Thank you in advance
-
Just want to add one comment. Where people end up in trouble is when they apply the canonical tag too broadly (to non-duplicates). This tends to happen when you have a CMS and one template drives multiple pages. So, let's say that all of your product pages are created by:
http://example.com/product.php
...and you just add IDs to that to create a product, like:
http://example.com/product.php?id=123
If you add a canonical tag to "product.php" pointing to a single product, you would essentially tell Google to canonicalize every product page on your site to just that one product. This is because that one physical file impacts hundreds of URLs. So, in that case, you would have to make sure the code logic was in place to apply the proper ID.
-
Mr. Painter said it perfectly.
With that said, I think the decision of whether or not to use canonical tags depends partially on what the varying URLs are. If they are like the books/author example above the Canonical tags are for you.
However a lot of people mistakenly think that using canonical tags to solve the non-www to www duplication is a proper solution when in fact you need to 301 in that case.
So if your URL duplication issues stem from http://books.com/author and http://www.books.com/author then you need to put a redirect in place instead.
Just wanted to add that tidbit on just in case. Good luck!
-
Hell,
first off here is some help - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139394?hl=en
the way it works is lets say you've got two bits of content on two different areas of a site but it will only index one (and mark other as a duplicate) Example :
&
Now these may be the same content, what we would then do is put a canonical tag on the duplicate page pointing to the page we wanted to be indexed ( I would recommend using one thats closer to the domain) so on www.books.com/genre/author we would put the tag -
What this does it tells Google this page is a duplicate of this one (the one in the link) Google will then ignore that page and only index the page in the canonical **In Short** Canonical is used for duplicate content if you only need one page to been indexed and want to avoid duplicate content issues. if you have duplicate content its perfect for you. Hope that helps clear it up
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
-
Landing pages for paid traffic and the use of noindex vs canonical
A client of mine has a lot of differentiated landing pages with only a few changes on each, but with the same intent and goal as the generic version. The generic version of the landing page is included in navigation, sitemap and is indexed on Google. The purpose of the differentiated landing pages is to include the city and some minor changes in the text/imagery to best fit the Adwords text. Other than that, the intent and purpose of the pages are the same as the main / generic page. They are not to be indexed, nor am I trying to have hidden pages linking to the generic and indexed one (I'm not going the blackhat way). So – I want to avoid that the duplicate landing pages are being indexed (obviously), but I'm not sure if I should use noindex (nofollow as well?) or rel=canonical, since these landing pages are localized campaign versions of the generic page with more or less only paid traffic to them. I don't want to be accidentally penalized, but I still need the generic / main page to rank as high as possible... What would be your recommendation on this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ostesmorbrod0 -
Has anyone used Wildshark?
Just stumbled across a company called Wildshark SEO (http://www.wildshark.co.uk). Has anyone used them? Any feedback? Please and thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Pagination Tag and Canonical
Once and for all - I would really like to get a few opinions regarding what is the best method working for you. For most of the all timers in here there's no need to introduce the pagination tag. The big question for me is regarding the canonical tag in those case. There are 2 options, as far as I consider: Options 1 will be implementing canonical tag directing to the main category page: For instance: example.com/shoes example.com/shoes?page=2 example.com/shoes?page=3 In this case all the three URL's will direct to the main category which is example.com/shoes Option 2 - using self-referral canonical for every page. In this case - example.com/shoes?page=2 will direct its canonical tag to example.com/shoes?page=2 and so on. What's the logic behind this? To make sure there are no floating pages onsite. If I'll use canonical that directs to the main category (option 1) then these pages won't get indexed and techniclly there won't be any indexed links to these pages. Your opinion?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoperad0 -
What is better? No canonical or two canonicals to different pages?
I have a blogger site that is adding parameters and causing duplicate content. For example: www.mysite.com/?spref=bl
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TMI.com
www.mysite.com/?commentPage=1 www.mysite.com/?m=1 www.mysite.com/?m=0 I decided to implement a canonical tag on these pages pointing to the correct version of the page. However, for the parameter ?m=0, the canonical keeps pointing to itself. Ex: www.mysite.com/?m=0 The canonical = www.mysite.com/?m=0 So now I have two canonicals for the same page. My question is if I should leave it, and let Google decide, or completely remove the canonicals from all pages?0 -
Partial duplicate content and canonical tags
Hi - I am rebuilding a consumer website, and each product page will contain a unique product image, and a sentence or two about the product (and we tend to use a lot of the same words in different ways across products). I'd like to have a tabbed area below the product info that talks about the overall product line, and this content would be duplicate across all the product pages (a "Why use our products" type of thing). I'd have this duplicate content also living on its own URL's so they can be found alone in the SERP's. Question is, do I need to add the canonical tag to this page, since there's partial duplicate content on the product pages? And if I did that, would my product pages go un-indexed?? I understand how to handle completely duplicated content, it's the partial duplicate that I'm having difficulty figuring out.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jenny10 -
Is link juice passed through a 301 and a canonical tag?
Hi all, I am led to believe that link juice does not pass through more than one 301 redirect, however what about a 301 and then a canonical meta tag? Here is an example: subdomain.site.com/uk/page/ -> 301 -> **www.**site.com/uk/page/ www.site.com**/uk/**page/ -> canonical -> www.site.com/page/ Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Further
Chris0 -
How to use the information
I've just signed up and now I want to start using all the information that your site is providing. How do I go about it? I know how to get to the 'back end' of my site, Joomla (CMS) and can alter all the information. I just need to know how to implement all the data you give me. Sorry, but I am new to this.....
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Aim4fun0 -
Not using a robot command meta tag
Hi SEOmoz peeps. Was doing some research on robot commands and found a couple major sites that are not using them. If you check out the code for these: http://www.amazon.com http://www.zappos.com http://www.zappos.com/product/7787787/color/92100 http://www.altrec.com/ You fill not find a meta robot command line. Of course you need the line for any noindex, nofollow, noarchive pages. However for pages you want crawled and indexed, is there any benefit for not having the line at all? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | STPseo0