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!
-
Thanks for your answer, John. So, we should have the client 301 the url A to the desired url B. Confirmed!
-
This doesn't sound ideal. So only the home page is under URL B, and the rest of the pages are hosted under URL A? That would seem really strange to me as a user if I entered through URL B, went to another page, and the domain changed completely.
Ideally, you should 301 redirect everything under URL A to URL B rather than using rel=canonical for them. There's no reason to host two identical sites like this. It's fine for multiple sites to be hosted under the same IP. Here's a really good SEOMoz blog post about using 301 redirects vs.canonical tags.
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
-
Do we need rel="prev" and rel="next" if we have a rel="canonical" for the first page of a series
Despite having a canonical on page 1 of a series of paginated pages for different topics, Google is indexing several, sometimes many pages in each topic. This is showing up as duplicate page title issues in Moz and Screaming Frog. Ideally Google would only index the first page in the series. Do we need to use rel="prev" etc rather than a canonical on page 1? How can we make sure Google crawls but doesn't index the rest of the series?
Moz Pro | | hjsand1 -
Moz Crawl Report more urls?
Hi. I have used Moz Crawl Test and get my 3,000 urls crawled no issue. However, my site has more than that, is it possible to crawl the entire website? Alot of the crawl urls in the Moz test are search string urls and filters so Ive probably wasted about 2,500 urls on filter urls. Any advise or alternative software that wont cost a fortune?
Moz Pro | | YNWA
Thanks0 -
Youtube traffic page url referral
Hello, How can I see which videos from Youtube that has my domain inserted in their description url drive traffic to my domain? I can see in GA how many visitors are coming from Youtube to my domain, but I can't see what Youtube video pages has driven traffic. Any help?
Moz Pro | | xeonet320 -
Does Moz recognize rel next prev tags? Magento question
Howdy Mozzers! We are running a store in magento where we have many products in each category. Hence view all for category pages is not an option. We have applied rel next prev tags to our paginated pages in the following manner Example for page 2 in a category: The issue we are facing is that Moz suggests www.domain.com/category and www.domain.com/category?p=1 as duplicates, even though rel next prev tags are implemented. 1. Does nel next prev consolidate link juice?
Moz Pro | | MozAddict
2. Does Moz recognize the tags?
3. Will this work for us or should we implement canonical tags as well?0 -
Need help understanding search filter URL's and meta tags
Good afternoon Mozzers, One of our clients is a real estate agent and on that site there is a search field that will allow a person to search by filtered categories. Currently, the URL structure makes a new URL for each filter option and in my Moz reports I get the report that there is missing meta data. However, the page is the same the filter options are different so I am at a loss as to how to proper tag our site to optimize those URL's. Can I rel canonical the URL's or alt rel them? I have been looking for a solution for a few days now and like I said I am at a loss of how to properly resolve these warning messages, or if I should even be concerned with the warning messages from Moz (obviously I should be concerned, they are warning messages for a reason). Thank you for your assistance in advance!
Moz Pro | | Highline_Ideas0 -
Extension-less URLS to extension and vice versa - does it affect PA?
Quick question: Will adding an extension such as .html or .php to a URL affect the Page Authority? Long explanation: My site is built in Drupal, and has the rewrite rules in place to redirect URLs with .php extension to no extension URLs. For example, the real URL for one of my pages is: http://www.trueresults.com/index.php?q=get-started. Because of the rewrite rule, it is rewritten to http://www.trueresults.com/get-started by Drupal. If I wanted to keep the url the same, but add an extension to the end (ie. ".html") would that affect my Page Authority? Would Google consider this an entirely new URL? The reasoning behind this is I am working on setting up some goals and events in my analytics and it requires urls with an extension, it's not accepting my "extension-less" urls. thanks!
Moz Pro | | TrueResults0 -
Have I got Rel Canonical or not?
I have 180 warnings of rel=canonical. The exact wording says this: Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. First - I don't know what that means - is that a good thing of bad thing? Second - Because of the above question, Im not sure if I have it or should have or it do have it but shouldn't. Which should I have? What should it look like? How do I fix it? Also, I have notices that say 'issue: 301 redirect' and a line about what a 301 redirect is. Again, do I have it, or not have it, should I have it? Do I have it but shouldn't?
Moz Pro | | borderbound0 -
SEOMOZ Canonical notices using Wordpress
I keeping getting the notice from SEO Moz Crawls relating to Canonical issues. I have tried Yoast SEO, All-in-One SEO and both insert the appropriate canonical code... Can anyone help determine why the crawls report this notice? Check out seoontario.ca\testamonials for an example. Could it be because the site in my SEOMOZ crawl does not have the http:// prefix? I've now installed FV Simpler SEO, a variant of All In Once SEO, but am getting the same canonical code...
Moz Pro | | kbryanton0