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
-
What is this exactly? Whiteboard Friday warning about footer links.
Hi guys. I've just been watching this whiteboard Friday. At 2.01 mins Rand mentions something about a penalty that Google gives for certain internal linking practices. I'm a little confused about it. Something along the lines of... 'stuffing keyword rich anchor text in the footer and nav bar' Does Rand mean repeating keyword rich anchor text in these areas? Or just that it's stuffing by nature... because it's on every page of the site? Hope that makes sense. I've attached a screen shot of our footer. Could you let me know if this is bad form? Thanks in advance 🙂 CLYGpiI
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | isaac6631 -
Putting rel=canonical tags on blogpost pointing to product pages
I came across an article mentioning this as a strategy for getting product pages (which are tough to get links for) some link equity. See #21: content flipping: https://www.matthewbarby.com/customer-acquisition-strategies Has anyone done this? Seems like this isn't what the tag is meant for, and Google may see this as deceptive? Any thoughts? Jim
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jim_shook0 -
Google robots.txt test - not picking up syntax errors?
I just ran a robots.txt file through "Google robots.txt Tester" as there was some unusual syntax in the file that didn't make any sense to me... e.g. /url/?*
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart
/url/?
/url/* and so on. I would use ? and not ? for example and what is ? for! - etc. Yet "Google robots.txt Tester" did not highlight the issues... I then fed the sitemap through http://www.searchenginepromotionhelp.com/m/robots-text-tester/robots-checker.php and that tool actually picked up my concerns. Can anybody explain why Google didn't - or perhaps it isn't supposed to pick up such errors? Thanks, Luke0 -
Forum generating automatically extra pages. Can I solve it with canonical?
Hey there Webmasters of the Universe. So i have this problem with my forum. The platform I am using it automatically creates extra pages for every page. For exampleIf my forum had one page called forum.com/examplethe same page you can find at forum.com/example?page=1If I set rel canonical into the second one pointing to the first one will that cause a problem for me?Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Angelos_Savvaidis0 -
Canonical Help (this is a nightmare)
Hi, We're new to SEO and trying to fix our domain canonical issue. A while back we were misusing the "link canonical" tag such that Google was tracking params (e.g. session ids, tagging ) all as different unique urls. This created a nightmare as now Google thinks there's millions of pages associated with our domain when the reality is really a couple thousand unique links. Since then, we've tried to fix this by: 1) specifying params to ignore via SEO webmasters 2) properly using the canonical tag. However, I'm still recognizing there's a bunch of outsanding search results that resulted from this mess. Any idea on expectation on when we'd see this cleaned up? I'm also recognizing that google is looking at http://domain.com and https://domain.com as 2 different pages even though we specify to only look at "http://domain.com" via the link canonical tag. Again, is this just a matter of waiting for Google to update its results? We submitted a site map but it seems like it's taking forever for the results of our site to clear up... Any help or insight would greatly be appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sfgmedia0 -
What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"?
Hi mozzers, I would like to know What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"? and is it dangerous to have both of these elements combined together? One of my client's page has the these two elements and kind of bothers me because I only know link rel="canonical" to be relevant to remove duplicates. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Does rel=canonical fix duplicate page titles?
I implemented rel=canonical on our pages which helped a lot, but my latest Moz crawl is still showing lots of duplicate page titles (2,000+). There are other ways to get to this page (depending on what feature you clicked, it will have a different URL) but will have the same page title. Does having rel=canonical in place fix the duplicate page title problem, or do I need to change something else? I was under the impression that the canonical tag would address this by telling the crawler which URL was the URL and the crawler would only use that one for the page title.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | askotzko0 -
Canonical Meta Tag
Can someone explain how this works and how necessary is it? For example, I have a new client, who is ranking WITHOUT the www in their domain, but they have a good deal of backlinks already that have www in it. When I set up google webmaster tools I made 2, one for WWW and one for WITHOUT and there are diffenet numbers of backlinks for each. I have no idea what do about this or if I should even do anything. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheGrid0