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
-
Unsolved How many sites can I track with one subscription?
Hello, We are currently a MozPro medium member and we are tracking amlrightsource.com but we have other sites we'd like to track as well. Wondering if we can track more sites with this subscription?
Moz Pro | | KassandraSharr0 -
Site Crawl 4xx Errors?
Hello! When I check our website's critical crawler issues with Moz Site Crawler, I'm seeing over 1000 pages with a 4xx error. All of the pages that are showing to have a 4xx error appear to be the brand and product pages we have on our website, but with /URL at the end of each permalink. For example, we have a page on our site for a brand called Davinci. The URL is https://kannakart.com/davinci/. In the site crawler, I'm seeing the 4xx for this URL: https://kannakart.com/davinci/URL. Could this be a plugin on our site that is generating these URLs? If they're going to be an issue, I'd like to remove them. However, I'm not sure exactly where to begin. Thanks in advance for the help, -Andrew
Moz Pro | | mostcg0 -
Importing Keywords... WITH tags?
Is this possible? I've found how to export to a CSV and copy/paste these into the usual keyword management page. Ideally, I would like to export/import the full information, along with the tags...... I have several brands that have a brand.com and a brandstore.com Any other cross-domain features I should be aware of? Thanks in advance......
Moz Pro | | EliteErikSEO0 -
Crawl Diagnostics - Crawling way more pages than my site has?
Hello all, I'm fairly new here, more of a paid search guy dabbling in SEO on the side. I have a client that I have in SEOMoz and the Crawl Diagnostics report is showing 10,000+ pages crawled and I think the site has at most 800 pages (e-commerce site using freewebstore.org as the platform). Any reasons this would be happening?
Moz Pro | | LodestoneGen0 -
How do I increase domain authority? Real Estate SIte
I have a site that is just a few months old. How do I get the domain authority up?
Moz Pro | | bronxpad0 -
Inbound Link Discrepancy: Campaign vs Open Site Explorer
Hello, I am getting starkly different inbound link amounts from Open Site Explorer and my Campaigns tab. Domain 1
Moz Pro | | truckguy77
Campaigns: Total links = 10,895,942 Open Site Explorer - Links = 224,000 Domain 2
Campaigns: Total links = 25,670,287
Open Site Explorer - Links = 157,000 Why would these be so different? For reference, the "Historical Domain Analysis" shows these sites getting exponentially more links starting in February. This is of concern to me. I didn't do anything different in February to get so many more links (especially not in the millions). If anything, I am hoping the "Campaigns" section is simply wrong about this.0 -
Crawl diagnostic Notices for rel Canonical increased
Hello, We just signed up for SEO Moz, and are reviewing the results of our second web crawl. Our Errors and Warnings summary have been reduced, but our Notices for Rel Canonical have skyrocketed from 300 to over 5,500. We are using a WP with the Headway theme and our pages already have the rel=canonical along wiht rel=author. Any ideas why this number would go up so much in one week? Thank you, Michael
Moz Pro | | MKaloud0 -
Certain Domains no longer recognised by open site explorer
Afternoon everyone (well, it is for me), We've been tracking the linking root domains to our domain for around 6 months now, alongside tracking these domains we have also been engaging in linking building activities. Our initial activities worked quite well with linking domains rising from around 620 to 720 in 3 months. However, recently we have seen those numbers begin to fall away, in many cases it is because certain domains have stopped linking to us, have become no=follow sites or have been archived. But, in some cases we can see the link is still there, and is being registered by other tools such as yahoo or webmaster tools. My question is really, does anyone have a way of working out why a link, that was in the past being registered by open site explorer, is no longer registering and presumably no longer passing over juice to help with domain authority. What kind of signals should i be looking for to tackle a 'decaying' link? Looking forward to hear your thoughts!
Moz Pro | | NigelJ0