Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Rel Canonical attribute order

Intermediate & Advanced SEO

488

jasondexter last edited by

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
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
KevinBudzynski last edited by

No, attribute order is irrelevant.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 1

Got a burning SEO question?

Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.

Start my free trial

Browse Questions

View

From

Sorted by

With category

Explore more categories

Related Questions

Rel-canonical vs Href-lang use for an international website.

I have a multi-country website that uses country subfolders to separate countries. When I run a Moz scan, I am getting canonical related alerts (this is probably related to some of our US content being duplicated on the other country websites). Shouldn't I be using href-lang instead since I am telling search engines that a certain article in country B, is just a copy of the same article in country A?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marshdigitalmarketing

0
301 Redirect and Canonical link tag pointing in opposite directions!

I'm working on a site which redirects the non-WWW version to WWW version so, for example https://website.com/page redirects to https://www.website.com/page However, canonical link tags have been set up on the page - pointing back to the non-WWW so for example Q - is this going to cause issues and should the canonical be updated to the same version as the redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII

0
Canonical URL's For Two Domains

We have two websites, one we use for Google PPC (website 1) and one (website 2) we use for everything else. The reason is we are in an industry that Google Adwords doesn't like, so we built a whole other website that removes the product descriptions as Google Adwords doesn't approve of many of them (nutrition). Right now we have that Google Adwords approved website (website 1) no-index/no-follow because we didn't want to run into potential duplicate content issues in free search, but the issue is we can't submit it to Google Shopping...as they require it to be indexable. Do you think removing the no-index/no-follow from that website 1 and adding canonical URL's pointing to website 2 would resolve this issue (being able to submit it to Google Shopping) and not cause any problems with duplicate content? I was thinking of adding the canonical tag to all pages of website 1 and point it to website 2. Does that make sense? Do you think that would work?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vetofunk

0
Moving from M. to Responsive: Rel Alternate Considerations

Hey Guys, We’re in the process of transitioning our key traffic generating pages on our website from m. to responsive. Today, our site uses Google’s ‘Separate URLs’ method. Rel alternate on desktop pages to m. pages 302 redirects pushing mobile visitors to m. pages Canonical on m. pages back to desktop pages As we make the transition to responsive we’ll be taking the following steps: Removal of 302 redirects pushing mobile visitors to m. pages 301 redirects from m. pages to desktop pages With those changes in mind, I’d love to get the communities opinion on how to best handle the real alternate attribute on desktop pages. I'm considering leaving the rel alternate attribute in place on desktop pages for 30-90 days so that search engines continue to see the alternate version without the 302 redirects in place, crawl it, and as a result discover the 301 redirects more readily. If we remove the 302 redirects as well as the rel alternate, then my feeling is that search engines would just index the responsive page accordingly and be less likely to catch the 301 redirects pointing from the m. pages and make the transition of mobile pages in search indices take longer than necessary. Ultimately, I'm probably splitting hairs and getting a bit nuanced because I believe things will work themselves out whether we leave the rel alternate or remove it but I thought it would be great to get any opinions or thoughts from community members that have made a similar transition. Thanks in advance for stopping by and providing your thoughts. All the best,
Jon PS - for your reference, the only mention that I was able to dig up in Q&A for a move from m. to responsive are the following: Redirecting M Dot Mobile Website to Responsive Design Website Questions SEO Concerns From Moving Mobile M Dot site to Responsive Version?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TakeLessons

0
Pagination parameters and canonical

Hello, We have a site that manages pagination through parameters in urls, this way: friendly-url.html
friendly-url.html?p=2
friendly-url.html?p=3
... We've rencently added the canonical tag pointing to friendly-url.html for all paginated results. In search console, we have the "p" parameter identified by google.
Now that the canonical has been added, should we still configure the parameter in search console, and tell google that it is being use for pagination? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teconsite

0
Review site using canonical tag in a puzzling way.

Have just been looking at a review site and they're using the canonical tag very strangely, to me. For example, they may have several pages of reviews of the same item - they use the canonical tag on page 2/3/4 to point back at page 1 - and yet there is no duplication between the pages. Any idea why they might be doing this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart

0
Rel Next and Previous on Listing Pages of Blog

Hi, Need to know does rel next and previous is more appropriate for content based articles and not blog listings.. Like an article spread across 3 pages - there it makes sense for rel next and previous as the content of the article is in series However, for blog listing page, for pages 1, 2, 3, 4 where every page is unique as the blog has all independent listings or separate articles - does rel next and previous wont of much help Our blog - http://www.mycarhelpline.com/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=latest&Itemid=91 This is what been said by the developer "The whole idea of adding the "next" and "previous" tag in the header is only when your single blog post has permalinks like: site.com/blog/entry/blog-post.html
site.com/blog/entry/blog-post.html?page=1
site.com/blog/entry/blog-post.html?page=2 " The link in the head is only applicable when your content is separated into multiple pages and it doesn't actually apply on listings. If you have a single blog post that is broken down to multiple pages, this is applicable and it works similarly like rel="canonical" Can we safely ignore rel next and previous tag for this blog pagination for the listing pages !!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Modi

0
Any penalty for having rel=canonical tags on every page?

For some reason every webpage of our website (www.nathosp.com) has a rel=canonical tag. I'm not sure why the previous SEO manager did this, but we don't have any duplicate content that would require a canonical tag. Should I remove these tags? And if so, what's the advantage - or disadvantage of leaving them in place? Thank you in advance for your help. -Josh Fulfer
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mhans

1