Is having "rel=canonical" on the same page it is pointing to going to hurt search?
-
i like the rel=canonical tag and i've seen matt cutts posts on google about this tag. for the site i'm working on, it's a great workaround because we often have two identical or nearly identical versions of pages: 1 for patients, 1 for doctors.
the problem is this: the way our content management system is set up, certain pages are linked up in a number of places and when we publish, two different versions of the page are created, but same content. because they are both being made from the same content templates, if i put in the rel=canonical tag, both pages get it. so, if i have:
http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp and http://www.myhospital.com/professional-condition.asp and they are both produced from the same template, and have the same content, and i'm trying to point search at http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp, but that tag appears on both pages
similarly, we have various forms and we like to know where people are coming from on the site to use those forms. to the bots, it looks like there's 600 versions of particular pages, so again, rel=canonical is great. however, because it's actually all the same page, just a link with a variable tacked on (http://www.myhospital.com/makeanappointment.asp?id=211) the rel=canonical tag will appear on "all" of them.
any insight is most appreciated!
thanks! brett
-
Yes
-
Got it. Dr.Pete have done excellent work on similar blog post. Right?
-
So, Does it really matter to add rel=canonical tag in each pages? Can I remove from web page?
It does matter, and you should not remove the canonical tag.
One example on the page you referenced is the following URL: http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/umbrella-stands?dir=asc&order=name
On the page you referenced visitors can change the default ORDER BY Position to ORDER BY Name (as an example) which changes the URL. Both pages are the same content but displayed different, which is exactly the type of issue canonicalization is designed to correct.
-
I am not getting clear idea by this answer. I am searching solution which may help me to solve same question.
I would like to share my URL.
http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/umbrella-stands
This page have rel=canonical tag for same page as follow.
<link rel="canonical" href="[http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/umbrella-stands](view-source:http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/umbrella-stands)" />
Website does not contain any duplicate page which is associated to this page. So, Does it really matter to add rel=canonical tag in each pages? Can I remove from web page?
-
Hi Brett.
Steven is correct. I think it will be helpful if I offer a bit more clarification.
www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp
www.myhopsital.com/professional-condition.asp
www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp?id=1
Those three URLs may point to the exact same page or very similar pages. Google simply wont index all 3 pages as it does not offer any user benefit. The best thing to do is tell Google which of these 3 pages is the primary page you wish listed. By placing the same canonical tag on all 3 pages, you are indicating to Google which page you wish listed.
With the above tag placed in all 3 pages, then Google knows in the first URL example they are dealing with the original page, and in the next 2 examples they are dealing with a copy.
NOTE: I am unsure why two users disliked this reply. It is correct. If I were to stretch, I can add that Bing stated their preference the canonical tag not used on a page who's URL matches the canonical, but they seem to handle it well with no issues.
-
With rel='canonical' you want to point all existing pages that have the same content to 1 page. Having a rel='canonical' on the page with itself as the href will not hurt, can only help verify that it is the preferred page.
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
-
If a URL canonically points to another link, is that URL indexed?
Hi, I have two URL both talking about keyword phrase 'counting aggregated cells' The first URL has canonical link pointing to the second URL, but if one searches for 'counting aggregated cells' both URLs are shown in the results. The first URL is the pdf, and i need only second URL (the landing page) to be shown in the search results. The canonical links should tell Google which URL to index, i don't understand why both URLs are present in search results? Is 'noindex' for the first URL only solution? I am using Yoast SEO for my website. Thank you for the answers.
Technical SEO | | Chemometec0 -
Need Help On Proper Steps to Take To De-Index Our Search Results Pages
So, I have finally decided to remove our Search Results pages from Google. This is a big dealio, but our traffic has consistently been declining since 2012 and it's the only thing I can think of. So, the reason they got indexed is back in 2012, we put linked tags on our product pages, but they linked to our search results pages. So, over time we had hundreds of thousands of search results pages indexed. By tag pages I mean: Keywords: Kittens, Doggies, Monkeys, Dog-Monkeys, Kitten-Doggies Each of these would be linked to our search results pages, i.e. http://oursite.com/Search.html?text=Kitten-Doggies So, I really think these pages being indexed are causing much of our traffic problems as there are many more Search Pages indexed than actual product pages. So, my question is... Should I go ahead and remove the links/tags on the product pages first? OR... If I remove those, will Google then not be able to re-crawl all of the search results pages that it has indexed? Or, if those links are gone will it notice that they are gone, and therefore remove the search results pages they were previously pointing to? So, Should I remove the links/tags from the product page (or at least decrease them down to the top 8 or so) as well as add the no-follow no-index to all the Search Results pages at the same time? OR, should I first no-index, no-follow ALL the search results pages and leave those tags on the product pages there to give Google a chance to go back and follow those tags to all of the Search Results pages so that it can get to all of those Search Results pages in order to noindex,. no follow them? Otherwise will Google not be able find these pages? Can someone comment on what might be the best, safest, or fastest route? Thanks so much for any help you might offer me!! Craig So, I wanted to see if you have a suggestion on the best way to handle it? Should I remove the links/tags from the product page (or at least decrease them down to the top 8 or so) as well as add the no-follow no-index to all the Search Results pages at the same time? OR, should I first no-index, no-follow ALL the search results pages and leave those tags on the product pages there to give Google a chance to go back and follow those tags to all of the Search Results pages so that it can get to all of those Search Results pages in order to noindex,. no follow them? Otherwise will Google not be able find these pages? Can you tell me which would be the best, fastest and safest routes?
Technical SEO | | TheCraig0 -
Why is there a difference in the number of indexed pages shown by GWT and site: search?
Hi Moz Fans, I have noticed that there is a huge difference between the number of indexed pages of my site shown via site: search and the one that shows Webmaster Tools. While searching for my site directly in the browser (site:), there are about 435,000 results coming up. According to GWT there are over 2.000.000 My question is: Why is there such a huge difference and which source is correct? We have launched the site about 3 months ago, there are over 5 million urls within the site and we get lots of organic traffic from the very beginning. Hope you can help! Thanks! Aleksandra
Technical SEO | | aleker0 -
Will rel canonical tags remove previously indexed URLs?
Hello, 7 days ago, we implemented canonical tags to resolve duplicate content issues that had been caused by URL parameters. These "duplicate content" had already been indexed. Now that the URLs have rel canonical tags in place, will Google automatically remove from its index the other URLs with the URL parameters? I ask because we have been tracking the approximate number of URLs indexed by doing a site: search in Google, and we have barely noticed a decrease in URLs indexed. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | yacpro130 -
Is it better to have URLs of internal pages that are geo-targeted or point geo-targeted links to the homepage?
For example... Having links that are geo-targeted and pointing to this URL www.test.com/state-service/ or Not having any geo-targeted internal pages and just having links that are geo-targeted and pointing to this URL www.test.com Eventually the site will be a national campaign, so I am concerned about having so many geo-targeted internal pages. Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | Cyclone0 -
Does the rel="bookmark" tag have any SEO impication?
I'm assuming the rel="bookmark" tag doesn't have any SEO implications but I just wanted to make sure it wasn't viewed like a nofollow by search engines.
Technical SEO | | eli.boda0 -
Video thumbnail pages with "sort" feature -- tons of duplicate content?
A client has 2 separate pages for video thumbnails. One page is "popular videos" with a sort function for over 700 pages of video thumbnails with 10 thumbnails and short desriptions per page. (/videos?sort_by=popularity). The second page is "latest videos" (/videos?sort_by=latest) with over 7,000 pages. Both pages have a sort function -- including latest, relevance, popularity, time uploaded, etc. Many of the same video thumbnails appear on both pages. Also, when you click a thumbnail you get a full video page and these pages appear to get indexed well. There seem to be duplicate content issues between the "popular" and "latest" pages, as well as within the sort results on each of those pages. (A unique URL is generated everytime you use the sort function i.e. /videos?sort_by=latest&uploaded=this_week). Before my head explodes, what is the best way to treat this? I was thinking a noindex,follow meta robot on every page of thumbnails since the individual video pages are well indexed, but that seems extreme. Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | 540SEO0 -
What is the criteria for link "Paged from Australia"
When i enter a keyword in google.com.au, and click on a link "Pages from australia" ( in the middle left ), i expect to australian sites only. But there are sites with .com extension. Then what is the meaning of link "Pages from australia". What does it signify ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050