Canonical issues using Screaming Frog and other tools?
-
In the Directives tab within Screaming Frog, can anyone tell me what the difference between "canonicalised", "canonical", and "no canonical" means? They're found in the filter box. I see the data but am not sure how to interpret them. Which one of these would I check to find canonical issues within a website? Are there any other easy ways to identify canonical issues?
-
Hello
I spotted this thread and was just about to reply, but Dirk has answered it all perfectly. Thanks Dirk!
Under 'reports' there's also a 'canonical errors' report which will show canonicals with various technical issues - Those that are blocked by robots.txt, have no response, 3XX redirect, 4XX or 5XX error (essentially anything other than a 200 ‘OK’ response). It will also show any URLs discovered only via a canonical, that are not linked to internally from the sites own link structure (in the ‘unlinked’ column when ‘true’).
Hope that helps anyway.
Cheers!
Dan
-
Hi,
The difference between them
-
canonical : url has a canonical url - which can be self-referencing (canonical url = url) or not
-
canonicalised: url has a canonical url which is not self-referencing (canonical url <> url)
-
no canonical : quite obvious - the url has no canonical.
Potential issues could be - url's that you would like to have a canonical don't have a canonical or url's that are canonicalised don't have the right canonical url. You can use the lists (both canonicalised & no canonical) from Screaming Frog to check them - but it's up to you to judge whether the canonical is ok or not (no automated tool can guess what your intentions are).
Typical mistakes with canonicals: all url's have the same canonical url (like the homepage), or have canonical url's that do not exist. You could also check this with Screaming Frog using the setting "respect canonicals" - this way only the canonical url's will be shown in the listing.Also keep in mind that canonical url's are merely a friendly request to Google to index the canonical rather than the normal url - but it's not an obligation for Google to do this (check https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en quote: "the search results will be more likely to show users that URL structure. (Note: We attempt to respect this, but cannot guarantee this in all cases.)"
Dirk
-
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
-
404 issues
Hello, Some time ago, something like a month and a half) I have removed all 404 errors from the google index and the webmaster tools have removed them already, however yesterday moz found the same 404 errors that i have removed from indexing (tose pages are deleted or redirected by the site developer). What could be an issue here and why webmaster tools are not registering those 404 errors but moz analytics does. And the other question is if those pages do not exist can i track where the placed? I tried dowloading moz crawl test, but the refering source was not provided. I would highly appreciate anyones help. Thank you
Technical SEO | | rikomuttik0 -
Canonicals
We have a client that has his products listed on 20+ different websites, including 4 of his own. Also, he only has 1 of everything, so once he sells it then the product is gone. To battle this duplication issue, plus having a short internet lifespan of less than 4 weeks, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to canonical the products back to the category page. Kind of like using canonical tags on your "used blue widget" and "used red widget" pages back to the "used widgets" page. Would this help with the duplicate content issues? Is this a proper use of a canonical?
Technical SEO | | WhoWuddaThunk0 -
Rel Canonical Crawl Notices
Hello, Within the Moz report from the crawl of my site, it shows that I had 89 Rel Canonical notices. I noticed that all the pages on my site have a rel canonical tag back to the same page the tag is on. Specific example from my site is as follows: http://www.automation-intl.com/resistance-welding-equipment has a Rel Canonical tag <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.automation-intl.com/resistance-welding-equipment" />. Is this self reference harmless and if so why does it create a notice in the crawl? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | TopFloor0 -
How do I use only one URL
my site can be reach by both www.site.com and site.com. How do I make it only use www?
Technical SEO | | Weblion0 -
Bing Webmaster tool
Hi Fellas, I wanted to know once you verify the BIng Webmaster tool (via xml file) for a dev site, do you have to do the verification process again for the final site? I thought I needed to do the verification again but once I added the final website (which have almost a similar URL) into the webmaster tool account, it seemed that I didn't have to verify it. I am a bit confused. Thank you for clarifying
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Is a 302 useful here?
We have a site that had one super successful viral video a couple of years back and basically the site needs a ton of work to even be functional. We don't have the time or the resources to even touch it. Our video is still getting tons of views today and I'm fairly certain it's the only reason the site still gets traffic. Most of the views come from youtube which prompts them to check out the site. We plan on going back to the site at a later date, but for now wanted to redirect it to another site of ours. In this case is it best practice to 302? or is a 301 still the proper solution?
Technical SEO | | ClaytonKendall0 -
Track Backs how to use them
Hi i am trying to learn how to use track backs as a way to get link exposure. Cana anyone please explain to me the importance of them and how to use them please. Would i use one by putting a link back to my site or am i wrong on this. any help would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Having some weird crawl issues in Google Webmaster Tools
I am having a large amount of errors in the not found section that are linked to old urls that haven't been used for 4 years. Some of the ulrs being linked to are not even in the structure that we used to use for urls. Never the less Google is saying they are now 404ing and there are hundreds of them. I know the best way to attack this is to 301 them, but I was wondering why all of these errors would be popping up. I cant find anything in the google index searching for the link in "" and in webmaster tools it shows unavailable as where these are being linked to from. Any help would be awesome!
Technical SEO | | Gordian1