Rel-canonical tag confusion
-
I had our web development company implement the rel-canonical tag on all pages of our website to get rid of the duplicate content months ago. However, when I use the On Page optimizer tool (in previous version) it would tell me I'm not using the rel-canonical tag correctly on the page I was grading and when I untagged use rel-canonical tag in our CMS (which was pointing to the correct page) my grade would go to an A. Now with the new version it says I'm using it wrong either way, when I have the tag used in my CMS and everything else is good I have a B, but one I click to not use Rel-canonical tag I have a C. Both ways it shows up in On-page tool without a check in Apprpriate Use of Rel Canonical.
I've attached pictures. In C version it says - Canonical URL "/info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
In B version: Canonical URL "/info/solutions/"
What am I doing wrong and how do i fix this? Because ALL of my grades have dropped to Bs and Cs.
Thanks!
iklEHOjJLZE4966 [URL]]([URL=http://imgur.com/5BYcV][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5BYcV.jpg[/IMG][/URL]) 5BYcV
-
The tag should work fine with the partial URL.
If you are still concerned about the warning, try adding the base href tag within the of your page. It would be as follows:
<base href="http://www.aircycle.com/">
This tag explicitly specifies the base URL to which all partial URLs are built upon for a given page. Try adding this tag to just the one page, then running the report again to see if that resolves the issue. If it does, then you know what change the tool is requesting.
To be clear, the canonical tag you are using should be fine for search engines assuming there is no other issue. This may be a specific issue with the tool.
Since testing the base href tag, and the full URL are relatively quick and easy to do, my suggestion is to spend 10 minutes performing these tests to see the results. If the tests work, then you can contact the SEOmoz help desk and report your findings as an issue with the tool. It could be a bug or limitation with the tool.
-
So does the tag still work with the partial URL or no? It worked before, so I'm not sure what the ordeal is now but that the new CMS is causing SEOmoz some difficulty reading this.
I'd have to have my web development company fix it to the full URL.
-
I am going to take my best guess, which would need to be tested.
The tool is seeing a partial URL and it does not like it. The best way to confirm the issue is add the complete URL and then test the page. If it passes, then I am correct.
<link href='http://www.aircycle.com/info/solutions/' rel='canonical' />
-
the missing one just shows the Canonical url listing the rest of the URL twice.
B version: "/info/solutions/"
c version: "/Info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
-
-
The first and third images appear the same to me, and the second image is a broken link.
"/info/solutions/" is not a complete URL. It can't be indexed.
Can you possibly share the URL to an example of a web page with this issue?
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
-
Crawl Diagnostics - 350 Critical errors? But I used rel-canonical links
Hello Mozzers, We launched a new website on Monday and had our first MOZ crawl on 01/07/15 which came back with 350+ critical errors. The majority of these were for duplicate content. We had a situation like this for each gym class: GLOBAL YOGA CLASS (canonical link / master record) YOGA CLASS BROMLEY YOGA CLASS OXFORD YOGA CLASS GLASGOW etc All of these local Yoga pages had the canonical link deployed. So why is this regarded as an error by MOZ? Should I have added robots NO INDEX instead? Would think help? Very scared our rankings are gonna get effected 😞 Ben
Moz Pro | | Bendall0 -
Rel=canonical "redirects" to double links
Our devs have set up rel=canonical on our website. First they used relative links href="/dir1/dir2/dir3" for the page http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/?detail1=1?detail2=2 meaning that it will redirect to http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3, but no luck, the MOZ dashboard showed the tag value to be http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/dir1/dir2/dir3, then we have decided to rewrite the code, and now the canonical to http://wwwmysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/?detail1=1?detail2=2 looks like href="http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/" but the tag on MOZ looks like http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3. So what is the problem? I really got a problem or MOZ does? The code on website looks exactly like href="http://www.aaa.com/en/bbb/ccc/vvv/nnn/" rel="canonical" /> for the page http://www.aaa.com/en/bbb/ccc/vvv/nnn/
Moz Pro | | apartmentGin0 -
Canonical link on canonical url
This might seem a bit of an odd one, but we seem to be going around in circles on this when using the on page optimizer tool. We have an ecommerce site (magento) which by default is putting a canonical link in the header on every product page. For example; www.example.com/product1.html has the But when we run the on page optimiser tool, we're losing points on the critical section for not having canonical set correctly. If we remove the tag, we get the tick and the a grade, but then further down the report we lose a tick for not using canonical links. What are we missing here?
Moz Pro | | andyjsi0 -
Why do I keep getting "more than one canonical URL tag" on-page factor when, in fact, there is always only one?
The following are pages that SEOMOZ says have "more than one canonical URL tag" but they all have only one. Can someone help me understand this?http://www.lasercenterny.com/Laser-Hair-Removal-Binghamton/tabid/1950/Default.aspxhttp://www.lasercenterny.com/Hair-Removal-Binghamton-NY/tabid/1949/Default.aspxhttp://www.lasercenterny.com/Hair-Removal-Binghamton/tabid/1948/Default.aspx
Moz Pro | | SmartWebPros0 -
HTML5 multiple h1 tags
When I run the On-Page Report Card it tells me that I should remove the multiple instances of H1 tags, even though the website is built using HTML5 and has hierarchical structure where each section / article has its own H1 tag. This approach is completely legal with HTML5 and I'm just wondering what impact does it have on SEO and whether the On-Page Report Card recognises the HTML5 and processes it accordingly.
Moz Pro | | coremediadesign0 -
'Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical', Critical Factor but appears correct on page
Hi, Trying to get the following page ranked unsuccessfully.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/2/Collections-Quilted-Jackets/c01c02.r16.1 Instead a product page is being ranked, shown below.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/Womens-Quilted-Jacket/Navy/M_HAMPTON/ProductDetail.raction When I run the on page report card it advises that the Rel Canonical tag needs to point to that page, but we have checked and it looks to be doing that already. Has anyone else had an issue like this? Thanks, Martin
Moz Pro | | rockethot0 -
Does the SEOMoz weekly crawl that highlights no meta description tag, take into account if there is a meta robots noindex,follow tag on the pages it indicates the missing meta descriptions?
The weekly crawl website report is telling me that there are pages that have missing meta description tags, yet I've implemented meta robots tags to 'noindex, follow' those pages which are visible in those page source files. As far as Google Is concerned, surely this then won't be a problem since it is being instructed NOT to consider these specific pages for indexing. I am assuming that the weekly SEOmoz website crawl is simply throwing the missing meta description crawl findings into its report without itself observing that the particluar URL references contain the meta robots 'noindex,follow' tag ???? Appreciate if you can clairfy if this is the case. It would help me understand that (at least in terms of my efforts towards Google) your own crawl doesn't observe the meta robots tag instruction, hence the resultant report's flagging the discrepancy.
Moz Pro | | callassist0 -
Can overly dynamic URLs be overcome with canonical meta tags?
I tried searching for questions regarding dynamic URLs and canonical tags, but I couldn't find anything s hopefully this hasn't been covered. There are a large number of overly dynamic URLs reported in our site crawl (>7,000). I haven't looked at each of these, but most of these either have a canonical meta tag or have are indicated as FOLLOW, NO INDEX pages. Will these be enough to overcome any negative SEO impact that may come from overly dynamic URLs? We are down to almost 0 critical errors and this is now the biggest problem reported by the site crawl after too many on page links.
Moz Pro | | afmaury0