Please take a look at my canonical tag - is it written right?
-
Hi there! I just changed the preferred domain settings from http://example.com to http://www.example.com and received a recommended action from Google: "Ensure that you specify the new host as canonical in all page links or sitemaps."
Could you please let me know if "the new host" is equal to "canonical" and if I have to include this tag into every page of my website ?
Thank you!
-
Thank you!
-
Unfortunately I'm not much of a coder, so I won't be able to guide you on the htaccess code piece. Regarding the Search Console items though, the tool treats every site that is setup as its own entity, which is why you need a country and XML for each. An example of why they do this because you might have different profiles for http://www.example.com/us and http://www.example.com/ca where the subfolder specifies the country. If they recycled the same info from each profile setup, the /ca site would be set to U.S. instead of Canada.
-
Thank you, Sean!
-
Logan,
Thank you very much for your advise! I figured out that it is going to be much of work going from page to page and set their canonicals:) Maybe updating my .htaccess will work out? I am wondering if that (please see below) would be the right thing to put in there?
RewriteEngine on
rewritecond %{http_host} ^example.com [nc]
rewriterule ^(.*)$ http://www.example.com/$1 [r=301,nc]Also, when I added the property (http://www.example.com) yesterday and set it as preferred domain, I was suggested to change the target country and submit a sitemap file for both http://example.com and http://www.example.com. I don't quite understand why do they want me to do that if the country and the sitemap are obviously the same?
-
Kirupa,
The syntax of your canonical tag is correct. However, there are a couple things you should know before you continue:
1- When Google says "Ensure that you specify the new host as canonical in all page links or sitemaps." it means they want to to update internal links and your XML sitemaps, so it's more involved than simply updating your canonical tag. Basically anywhere your URLs are referenced should be updated to reflect your new www-canonical URL structure.
2- You may have provided that one tag as an example, but DO NOT put that exact tag on every page of your site. Doing so would point search engines to the homepage of your site from any page they visit. Canonical tags are basically soft redirects that search engines follow, so when a bot sees a canonical tag on one page that points to another page, they leave and go to where the canonical is pointing them. Google will often de-index URLs that canonicalize to another URL, which I'm assuming you don't want
-
Hey Kirupa,
Short answer is that you're all good. The canonical is correct.
All the best,
Sean
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
-
Why is my DA going down despite doing everything right?
I have been doing everything right that I could possibly do on my blog, tracking down and deleting broken links, writing for endless other publications to build my link profile, having an easy to read site with regularly updated content. Despite this, my DA has gone down by two. It's infuriating and I don't know why this is happening - does anyone have any ideas?
Technical SEO | | AmyAed1 -
Rel=Canonical For Landing Pages
We have PPC landing pages that are also ranking in organic search. We've decided to create new landing pages that have been improved to rank better in natural search. The PPC team however wants to use their original landing pages so we are unable to 301 these pages to the new pages being created. We need to block the old PPC pages from search. Any idea if we can use rel=canonical? The difference between old PPC page and new landing page is much more content to support keyword targeting and provide value to users. Google says it's OK to use rel=canonical if pages are similar but not sure if this applies to us. The old PPC pages have 1 paragraph of content followed by featured products for sale. The new pages have 4-5 paragraphs of content and many more products for sale. The other option would be to add meta noindex to the old PPC landing pages. Curious as to what you guys think. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
Canonical Expert question!
Hello, I am looking for some help here with an estate agent property web site. I recently finished the MoZ crawling report and noticed that MoZ sees some pages as duplicate, mainly from pages which list properties as page 1,2,3 etc. Here is an example: http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=2
Technical SEO | | artdivision
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=3 etc etc Now I know that the best practise says I should set a canonical url to this page:
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=all but here is where my problem is. http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 contains good written content (around 750 words) before the listed properties are displayed while the "page=all" page do not have that content, only the properties listed. Also http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 is similar with the originally designed landing page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses I would like yoru advise as to what is the best way to can url this and sort the problem. My original thoughts were to can=url to this page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses instead of the "page=all" version but your opinion will be highly appreciated.0 -
Is it a good idea to use the rel canonical tag to refer to the original source?
Sometimes we place our blog post also on a external site. In this case this post is duplicated. Via the post we link to the original source but is it also possible to use the rel canonical tag on the external site? For example: The original blogpost is published on http://www.original.com/post The same blogpost is published on http:///www.duplicate.com/post. In this case is it wise to put a rel canonical on http://www.duplicate.com/post like this: ? What do you think? Thanks for help! Robert
Technical SEO | | Searchresult0 -
Canonical versus 301 for affilaite links
Affiliate links for the Volusion ecommerce shops are of the form mydomain.com/?Click=XX where XX is the affiliate ID. Volusion uses rel=canonical to redirect the affiliate links to mydomain.com. Is this a good solution? I used iDevAffiliate for another online store, and their solution was to use 301 redirects to trip off the ? string. Comments? Best,
Technical SEO | | ChristopherGlaeser
Christopher0 -
Regarding Rel Canonical on PhoneTech.dk
Hi All you Seo Experts from seomoz I have a question about one of my webshops where I have the same product listed in different categories where I on the duplicate pages use the Rel Caninical Tag on, that points to the main product url. I just have to verify with you guys that I did it correctly Example on the shop. This is just an example www.phonetech.dk/shop/product1.html - This is Main Duplicates www.phonetech.dk/shop/iphone3G/product1.html - Canonical Tag on this one pointing to the main. www.phonetech.dk/shop/iphone3g/backcovers/product1.html - Canonical Tag on this one pointing to the main. www.phonetech.dk/shop/iphone3gs/colorbackcovers/product1.html - Canonical Tag here also pointing to main Hope you guys can help me that my use of Canonical Tag is correct. Regards Christian - Denmark
Technical SEO | | noerdar0 -
Why does it take so long for my TITLE tag it show ??
Hi Guys, I am frustrated here! I have changed my title tag so that I get a much better CTR. But I changed it a week ago and it is still howing the old title tag in the SERPS. Can anyone please tell me how long Google can take to show the new title tag in the search results?? Can it take weeks?? Thanks guys Gareth
Technical SEO | | GAZ090 -
Googleoff/on tags
Hi all, I'd like to restrict Google indexing a part of content on the page. Does tag really work for it as it described on https://developers.google.com/search-appliance/documentation/46/admin_crawl/Preparing#pagepart? Thanks, Jane
Technical SEO | | Jane_Barry0