Is your live site supposed to have rel canonical tags?
-
I recently started working for a company and got them to use Moz and I have found that our secure site and our live sites are creating "duplicate content" according to the Crawl Diagnostics feature. On our secure site we have rel canonical tags pointing to our live site. I'm not super familiar with rel canonical tags, but our developer says we're doing the right thing. Would love any insight you guys may have if this is actually duplicate content or not. Thanks so much!
-
Agree with Dave's comments. 1) Get the syntax updated on your canonical links at a minimum. 2) Yes your canonical solution will "work", but it is not best practice. This "solution" is really a last resort. I would try and push to move away from using canonicals this way. You optimally want 1 URL.
Just to add some color, a great / classic video on this was made by Matt Cutts. He gives all kinds of examples where you could have duplicate URLs, i.e. www vs non www subdomain, sorting parameters added onto the URL, different file extensions, capitalization changes, etc. He then gives 3 options to fix them.
-
Best practice: Fix your site where you only have one URL per content item and link to it consistently (Best solution)
-
Use 301 redirects to consolidate to one URL (Next best solution)
-
Use a canonical link, if you cannot do 1 or 2. (Last resort)
Note that Matt says that they treat a canonical as a strong suggestion (it is treated similar to a 301), but they do not always have to follow it. He repeatedly says, use the first two options, and would NOT recommend a canonical as your best or first option.
My favorite quote is at 2:24 in the video, "Developers keep SEOs in business"
What your developer may notice is that Matt does say that using a canonical link for consolidating http and https will work. No one here would say that it would not, it is just not optimal. Sure, you can use a pair of scissors to cut your lawn, "it will work". It doesn't mean it's the best idea. I would think any developer worth his/her salt would want to have "clean code" and having duplicate URLs is not "clean" by SEO standards
Ok, so now you need to go back to the developer or your manager with an argument that is stronger than just, "Well, some random dude on the Moz forum said that Matt Cutt's from Google said it was preferred not to use a canonical link even though it would work". I would never want to leave you in such a position. Here is what will/can happen over time if you stay with your current setup.
-
Report consolidation issues. When you look at GA for traffic or OSE for links, any spidering tool for technical issues, social sharing counts, you now have split data for any given page potentially. Sure there are ways around this, but now you have to spend all your time "fixing" reports that should not be broken to start with. Trust me, this will come back to bite you on the bum and will cripple your efforts to show the efficacy of your SEO work. Now who really wants that?
-
Link juice consolidation issues. With any redirect - you lose a bit of link juice. If you have links to both sets of URLs, any single page is not getting as much credit as it should.
-
Down the line 301 redirect bloat. If you ever change anything and need to setup a 301 redirect, now you have to setup 2 of them and having too many 301s can negatively impact server performance.
One last thing. If you can get the URLs consolidated into one using 301s etc. Go with the https That is the way that we are headed with the web and so you might as well get going in that direction.
Good luck!
-
-
I really appreciate the response and the added information. I guess we will see if anyone else responds!
-
I'd be interested in hearing what someone else has to say about the way the canonicals are coded. You're doing yours similar to the way I do DNS Prefetching with the double slash to start the URL:
It works fine with prefetching as all the browser needs to do is find the IP of the domain but I'm not sure here how it'll handle sub-directories including www and I hate variables even when they're "it should work". The more common way to canonicalize your secured page would be:
/>
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any direct experience with this but at the core of technical SEO issues I always lean to "most common usage" and "how Google shows it in their examples" just to make sure there is minimal chance of hiccups or issues.
That aside though, the developer is right though I'd always still prefer to just see the pages at a single URL. Since that can't be done however ... canonicals are the way to go.
-
That is correct! Here is an example of two URL's of what i'm talking about:
http://www.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinship
https://agrouptt4.secure2.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinshipDoes this help clarify my question? I hope so!
-
I'm not sure I entirely understand the scenario so let me note how I'm hearing it to make sure my understanding is correct to put the answer into context. Please do let me know if my understanding of the scenario is wrong as that may well change my thoughts on it.
You note that your secure site and live site are creating duplicate content. Of course a secure site can be live but I'm taking this to mean you have an area behind a login. That it's creating duplicate content is making me think that a lot of the core information is the same and I'm guessing many of the same pages.
If this is all correct and you can't put the duplicated pages onto one URL only then the canonicals are the way to go and your developer is correct.
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
-
Site visitors dropped off- have tried everything
Hello Moz team....I love the tools but I'm more of a content created for my web site than a developer. So I am super stuck with a major money losing problem. My traffic has nearly gone to zero and I have good content, regular content, no duplicate content, and so on. Can someone help.... Today I disavowed thousands of bad inbound links found in a Moz report Since January I have been fixing pages with missing meta data found in the crawl report In December 2018 I switched over to HTTPS I have no clueeeeeee
Moz Pro | | MattBanes0 -
Backlink profile from Open Site Explorer does not seem to update
I have been monitoring our backlink profile on Open Site for over a year now and despite getting a number of new domains linking to us they are not reflected in the tool. Our URL is: www.BlueLinkERP.com Any thoughts on why this might be the case? The number of linking domains also seems very low compared with other tools we use (i.e. HubSpot)
Moz Pro | | BlueLinkERP0 -
What is the best ranking checker solution for 100's of sites
Hello, We used IBP for over 2 years and it worked great. We were able to schedule every clients site to auto run and email our clients. Now IBP is terrible due to Google's new updates. We are looking for something cost effective since we have 100's of websites we check on a weekly basis. We are either looking for a great software that uses proxies to check, or a service that offers unlimited sites and is cheap per month. We have searched for many, however there are so many that we aren't sure what is good and what isn't. We tried Jonathan Ledgers new one and it's not good, we looked into Web CEO and it's per amount of websites which is expensive. We tried cute rank tracker which is free and added proxies and it doesn't work, it lags out and doesn't even track ranks properly. It wouldn't hurt if it had a built in report analysis of the website as well. So whats a good one?
Moz Pro | | MarketingOfAmerica0 -
Does Open Site Explorer purposefully not crawl some sites?
I use both SEOmoz's Open Site Explorer and Web Master Tools to find backlinks when conducting link audits. WMT always finds more links than OSE; I understand Google's database is bigger. But what is interesting to me is that it seems that a large percentage of the links WMT finds that OSE does not are real crappy links that I don't want. That makes me wonder if SEOmoz decides not to crawl certain, low quality, sites? Just curious.
Moz Pro | | ILM_Marketing0 -
Open Site Explorer - SEO - Company Back Links not visible?
Hi Guys, I am relatively new to the SEO community and have what is hopefully a pretty quick and simple question? I have recently outsourced some of my SEO campaigns to an Australian SEO group which were referred to me buy a friend, and i do not have the time to manage all sites SEO. On pitch the SEO company said they had in excess of 7000 domains, and they would implement a massive back linking strategy for me anywhere upwards of 200 links a month and all legit. Initially there were some basic header and title tag changes needed on the site, and I am now in month 4 of my campaign. Looking forward to using SEOMOZ service and specifically Open Site Explorer, I entered my URL but to my disappointment I could only see 4 links and two I was responsible for. I spoke to the SEO company who responded Open Site Explorer wasn't a good indication of back links and that a lot of their sites were not on the network because of the structure of their linking being only one way. I would appreciate a second opinion (external of this company) on this because of my short time learning and dabbling with SEO. On a side note thoroughly enjoying learning SEO and my journey as part of the SEOMOZ community. Appreciate any feedback or responses I get. Kind regards Bodie http://www.berkeleyriver.com.au
Moz Pro | | Bodie0 -
Tool which shows site ranking for a given keyword
Hi all. I have a client with a specific request and wanted to ask if there is a reliable tool which allows a user to enter a given site and keyword, and it will return the site's ranking for that keyword. More specifically: Needs to work for Google, Yahoo and Bing Needs to work for various countries such as Google.ca, Google.it, etc. Needs to show at least the top ?10k rankings, not just the top 50 The last requirement is the challenge. I clearly recognize anything past the top 50 or so ranks is really off the map, but the client would like to view his current standings.
Moz Pro | | RyanKent0 -
Rel Canonical issues for two urls sharing same IP address
Our client built a wordpress site on url A, then opted for a better url B. Rather than moving all the wordpress files/website over to the new url B, they just contacted GoDaddy, who hosted BOTH urls under the same IP address. When I do a term target on url B, I'm flagged for rel canonical use. I can only get a B grade for each keyword. (I've also tried using url A, but I get the same flag and B grade results). I'm not sure if this set-up will thwart our seo efforts for the site, because only the homepage comes up when you type in url B anyway. Every subsequent page displays the original url A. Somewhere, wordpress is also adding a rel canonical link on the homepage source to url A, too, which we can't seem to edit. So, question is: is it ok to leave this set up as is with both urls hosted on the same IP address, or should we move the whole site over to the desired url B? Thanks much!
Moz Pro | | GravitateOnline0 -
How does SeoMoz works with noindex meta tags?
In my last SeoMoz Crawl I've found a lot of warnings about duplicated content in page with a noindex meta tag. Is that normal? These pages should not be considered as indexable content of my website, isn't it?
Moz Pro | | jgomes0