How rel=canonical works with index, noindex ?
-
Hello all,
I had always wondered how the index,noindex affects to the canonical. And also if the canonical post should be included in the sitemap or not.
I posted this
http://www.comparativadebancos.co...
and with a rel=canonical to this that was published at the beginning of the month
http://www.comparativadebancos.co...
but then I have the first one in google
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f...
May be this is evident for you but, what is really doing the canonical? If I publish something with the canonical pointing to another page, will it still be indexed by google but with no penalty for duplicate content? Or the usual behaviour should have been to havent indexed the first post but just the second one?
Should I also place a noindex in the first post in addition to the canonical?
What am I missing here?
thanks
-
Antonio,
I came into this question a little late so I'm not sure how it was back when you asked it, but right now the problem I see is that the page that does exist ( http://www.comparativadebancos.com/mejores-depositos-bancarios-de-marzo-de-2011/ ) has a rel canonical tag pointing to the page that doesn't exist ( http://www.comparativadebancos.com/depositos/marzo/ ), which returns a 404 response code.
I think right now the best thing you can do would be to change the rel canonical tag on /mejores-depositos-bancarios-de-marzo-de-2011/ to be http://www.comparativadebancos.com/mejores-depositos-bancarios-de-marzo-de-2011/ .
-
I im saying that it is important to Google to tell them more what you want to use as your content without possible parameter "/" "www" adding a duplicate content penalty to your website.
-
Hi,
I agree that it will not help you to too much with stolen content. Unless Google has indexed you 1st they would probably give you 1st rights to the disputed content. The reason I believe you are getting with such good results on Google a non-indexed URL or what should be nonindexed is Google indexes everything regardless and from what Matt Cutts said "According to Google, the canonical link element is not considered to be a directive, but a hint that the web crawler will "honor strongly" "
my belief is Google is throwing more honor to dealing with the canonical.
I hope I was of some help.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zickell
-
Blueprint, as far as I understand it can't really be used to prevent people stealing your content because you need to have to similar versions and place the tag pointing to the one that is of lesser value or that you don't want to come up in place of the original. Or are you saying if you find some of your content elsewhere offsite you can place a canonical link to it, and this will tell the spiders it is your content rather than theres?
Antonio, if you have placed the tag on the newer page pointing to the older page you are telling the spiders that the newer page is the preferred/more original content.
-
I would say that rel=canonical is one of the single most vital parts of a website no matter how it's Written or hosted all must be set up to appropriately take traffic and simply tell Google I'm not trying to duplicate my content here is my <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/" /> and that way if anyone does haven't come across your content and try to make it their own they will be the ones penalized for stealing it not you. Always put this tag in the page that you have created and the one that you want Google to understand is your copy of your website content here is some info from Matt Cutts at Google as well as Wikipedia hope I am of help
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/rel-canonical-html-head/
A canonical link element is an HTML element that helps webmasters prevent duplicate content issues by specifying the "canonical", or "preferred", version of a web page<sup id="cite_ref-googleblog_0-0" class="reference">[1]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3]</sup> as part of search engine optimization.
Duplicate content issues occur when the same content is accessible from multiple URLs.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4]</sup> For example, <tt>http://www.example.com/page.html</tt> would be considered by search engines to be an entirely different page to<tt>http://www.example.com/page.html?parameter=1</tt>, even though both URLs return the same content. Another example is essentially the same (tabular) content, but sorted differently.
In February 2009, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft announced support for the canonical link element, which can be inserted into the section of a web page, to allow webmasters to prevent these issues.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup> The canonical link element helps webmasters make clear to the search engines which page should be credited as the original.
According to Google, the canonical link element is not considered to be a directive, but a hint that the web crawler will "honor strongly".<sup id="cite_ref-googleblog_0-1" class="reference">[1]</sup>
While the canonical link element has its benefits, Matt Cutts, who is the head of Google's webspam team, has claimed that the search engine prefers the use of 301 redirects. Cutts claims the preference for redirects is because Google's spiders can choose to ignore a canonical link element if they feel it is more beneficial to do so.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup>
[edit]Examples of the
canonical
link element<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/" />
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/page.html" />
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/directory/page.html" /> ```
-
you should give it time to settle down in the SERPS ... the results are muddy for a while but your canonicals will eventually show up if they have been implemented correctly.
-
I have already done it but my question come after this one
Where Rand suggest me to do the canonical thing I am explaining here. So my doubt is why it is indexing the new post better than the old one and how this is supposed to work.
From my understanding and also from your link, if I use rel=canonical is the "canonical" url the one that has to be indexed and not the one with "rel=canonical" but it has not been my case and now I have both indexed...
Any suggestion?
-
Is it the opposite. The new one has a rel=canonical to the old one because it was written with the same content that the old one but then it appears in the index.
Then the new one has been indexed and I thought it wasnt going to be indexed. But at the same time it ranks much higger than the old one...
-
According to Google a rel=canonical is just a hint 9although they say they strongly honour it) - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html. This might explain why your old page is still showing up int he results.
Has your new page been indexed yet?
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 you Index your Image Repository?
On our backend system, when an image is uploaded it is saved to a repository. For example: If you upload a picture of a shark it will go to - oursite.com/uploads as shark.png When you use a picture of this shark on a blog post it will show the source as oursite.com/uploads/shark.png This repository (/uploads) is currently being indexed. Is it a good idea to index our repository? Will Google not be able to see the images if it can't crawl the repository link (we're in the process of adding alt text to all of our images ). Thanks
Technical SEO | | SteveDBSEO0 -
Ranking and Indexing Issue
We have an established site www.getinspired365.com that previously wasn't SEO optimised. We are currently in the process of testing out some new pages to see if we can get them to rank in Google, however we are seeing huge fluctuations in where they rank. Within the first few days we saw our page rank on the first or second page, however it has now dropped out of the top 250 search results. We are wondering if we have made any mistakes with our optimisation ? Example Page : Keyword to target - "If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day. That's a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week, you're going to have something special." URL : http://www.getinspired365.com/if-you-laugh-you-think-and-you-cry-thats-a-full-day-thats-a-heck-of-a-day-you-do-that-seven-days-a-week-youre-going-to-have-something-special We can see it has been indexed by Google but is now not ranking in the top 250 search engine results. We have run the On Page Grader from SEOMoz and it ranks the page as an "A" so we suspect that we are doing the SEO ok on the page, but can't work out why it isn't ranking, despite ranking on the first or second page after a few days ? We have other pages that aren't SEO optimised that rank better than our newly SEO optimised pages e.g. Keyword - "THE BEST LOVE IS THE KIND THAT AWAKENS THE SOUL AND MAKES US REACH FOR MORE, THAT PLANTS A FIRE IN OUR HEARTS AND BRINGS PEACE TO OUR MINDS. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN ME. THAT'S WHAT I'D HOPED TO GIVE YOU FOREVER" URL: http://www.getinspired365.com/20130528 Any advice you could offer would be great. Thanks ! Mike
Technical SEO | | MichaelWhyley0 -
Rel Canonical for the Same Page
Hi, I was looking in my one of my moz accounts and under analyz page under notices is a message that says: Rel Canonical Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. I checked an notice that I do have a rel='canonical' href='http://www.example.com' /> from the home page of http://www.example.com. I guess my question is. Does having a Rel Canonical going to the same page hurt my SEO? I'm not sure why it is there but wanted to make sure I address this correctly. I was under the impression you use Rel Canonical for duplicate or similar pages and you want to let Google know what page to show. But since I've made this mistake to where I am saying to show the home page if you find a similar home page, should I just delete the Rel Canonical. Thanks,
Technical SEO | | ErrickG
Errick0 -
If Google's index contains multiple URLs for my homepage, does that mean the canonical tag is not working?
I have a site which is using canonical tags on all pages, however not all duplicate versions of the homepage are 301'd due to a limitation in the hosting platform. So some site visitors get www.example.com/default.aspx while others just get www.example.com. I can see the correct canonical tag on the source code of both versions of this homepage, but when I search Google for the specific URL "www.example.com/default.aspx" I see that they've indexed that specific URL as well as the "clean" one. Is this a concern... shouldn't Google only show me the clean URL?
Technical SEO | | JMagary0 -
Rel="canonical" again
Hello everyone, I should rel="canonical" my 2 languages website /en urls to the original version without /en. Can I do this from the header.php? Should I rel="canonical" each /en page (eg. en/contatti, en/pagina) separately or can I do all from the general before the website title? Thanks if someone can help.
Technical SEO | | socialengaged0 -
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
Getting Posts Indexed
On a Wordpress site I'm working on you can get to any product from home in 2 clicks but I'm a llittle concerned about the URL which looks like this: domain/categoryname/subcategoryname/productpage Will I have trouble getting my products indexed?
Technical SEO | | waynekolenchuk0 -
If you only want your home page to rank, can you use rel="canonical" on all your other pages?
If you have a lot of pages with 1 or 2 inbound links, what would be the effect of using rel="canonical" to point all those pages to the home page? Would it boost the rankings of the home page? As I understand it, your long-tail keyword traffic would start landing on the home page instead of finding what they were looking for. That would be bad, but might be worth it.
Technical SEO | | watchcases0