Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Exact Syntax for Canonical to PDFs for Windows Server
-
Hi There,
I have got in my web several PDFs with the same content of the HTML version. Thus I need to set up a canonical for each of them in order to avoid duplicate content.
In particular, I need to know how to write the exact syntax for the windows server (web.config) in order to implement the canonical to PDF. I surfed the web but it seems I cannot find this piece of info anywhere
Thanks a lot!!
-
Thanks Paul
I had a look at the page, but as I can see it uses headers to identify the response, but the actions are rewrite or redirect. There is a custom response you can use,
for a definitive answer I would ask on iis.net http://forums.iis.net/
Or you could place each pdf in its own folder and place the header on the folder
-
To implement a canonical tag for an individual page/file in IIS, you need to insert a custom response header via an outbound rule in the IIS Rewrite module, not through the web.config.
Sorry I don't have a specific example handy (haven't had to wrassle with IIS in some time). I'll see if I can dig one up.
Meanwhile, here's a link to the relevant section of the general Rewrite Module info in case maybe Alan can suggest the specifics.
Paul
-
Thanks for finding that, I see it says url, but I cant see how that is actually done. All it does it create a web.config in the folder you choose, I found no way of doing it ofr the indervidual file, unless you have only one file per forder
here is the web.config, how to test it works?
<configuration><system.webserver><httpprotocol><customheaders><add name="CononicalUrl" value="Link: http:/domain.com/my.pdf; rel=canonical"></add></customheaders></httpprotocol></system.webserver></configuration>
-
Not according to this doc:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753812(v=ws.10).aspx
"Levels
The procedures for configuring HTTP headers can be performed at the following levels in IIS:
-
Web Server
-
Site
-
Application
-
Physical and virtual directories
-
File (URL)"
-
-
My mistake
-
I don't think this can be done in web.config. I don't think it can be done at all.
while you can add a canonical header, to a folder using IIS, you cant add if to a file.
-
He's on a windows server and there is no .htaccess, you use web.config.
-
Hi, I believe your question is answered here via .htaccess file rather than web.config. Moz blog: How To: Advanced rel="canonical" HTTP Headers
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
-
Absolute vs. Relative Canonical Links
Hi Moz Community, I have a client using relative links for their canonicals (vs. absolute) Google appears to be following this just fine, but bing, etc. are still sending organic traffic to the non-canonical links. It's a drupal setup. Anyone have advice? Should I recommend that all canonical links be absolute? They are strapped for resources, so this would be a PITA if it won't make a difference. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SimpleSearch1 -
Why is rel="canonical" pointing at a URL with parameters bad?
Context Our website has a large number of crawl issues stemming from duplicate page content (source: Moz). According to an SEO firm which recently audited our website, some amount of these crawl issues are due to URL parameter usage. They have recommended that we "make sure every page has a Rel Canonical tag that points to the non-parameter version of that URL…parameters should never appear in Canonical tags." Here's an example URL where we have parameters in our canonical tag... http://www.chasing-fireflies.com/costumes-dress-up/womens-costumes/ rel="canonical" href="http://www.chasing-fireflies.com/costumes-dress-up/womens-costumes/?pageSize=0&pageSizeBottom=0" /> Our website runs on IBM WebSphere v 7. Questions Why it is important that the rel canonical tag points to a non-parameter URL? What is the extent of the negative impact from having rel canonicals pointing to URLs including parameters? Any advice for correcting this? Thanks for any help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Solid_Gold1 -
Two Different Domains exact same content
Hello, I suspect I know the answer to this but would like to have it confirmed. I have been speaking to a company the last couple of weeks who have 2 domains with the exact same content. Possible a third but they haven't supplied a link. This from all I've read would be a huge problem for ranking and SEO. What would be the best way to deal with this ? I did do a search and found articles/questions on same content on the same site and in articles etc but nothing about exactly the same websites on 2 domains. Cheers David.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | techdesign0 -
Canonical tag + HREFLANG vs NOINDEX: Redundant?
Hi, We launched our new site back in Sept 2013 and to control indexation and traffic, etc we only allowed the search engines to index single dimension pages such as just category, brand or collection but never both like category + brand, brand + collection or collection + catergory We are now opening indexing to double faceted page like category + brand and the new tag structure would be: For any other facet we're including a "noindex, follow" meta tag. 1. My question is if we're including a "noindex, follow" tag to select pages do we need to include a canonical or hreflang tag afterall? Should we include it either way for when we want to remove the "noindex"? 2. Is the x-default redundant? Thanks for any input. Cheers WMCA
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WMCA0 -
Pitfalls when implementing the “VARY User-Agent” server response
We serve up different desktop/mobile optimized html on the same URL, based on a visitor’s device type. While Google continue to recommend the HTTP Vary: User-Agent header for mobile specific versions of the page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va6qtaiZRHg), we’re also aware of issues raised around CDN caching; http://searchengineland.com/mobile-site-configuration-the-varies-header-for-enterprise-seo-163004 / http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2249533/How-Googles-Mobile-Best-Practices-Can-Slow-Your-Site-Down / http://orcaman.blogspot.com/2013/08/cdn-caching-problems-vary-user-agent.html As this is primarily for Google's benefit, it's been proposed that we only returning the Vary: User-Agent header when a Google user agent is detected (Googlebot/MobileBot/AdBot). So here's the thing: as the server header response is not “content” per se I think this could be an okay solution, though wanted to throw it out there to the esteemed Moz community and get some additional feedback. You guys see any issues/problems with implementing this solution? Cheers! linklater
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | linklater0 -
Canonical link vs root domain
I have a wordpress website installed on http://domain.com/home/ instead of http://domain.com - Does it matter whether I leave it that way with a canonical link from the domain.com to the domain.com/home/ or should I move the wordpress files and database to the root domain?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JosephFrost0 -
Canonical & noindex? Use together
For duplicate pages created by the "print" function, seomoz says its better to use noindex (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not) and JohnMu says its better to use canonical http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6c18b666a552585d&hl=en What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1