Crawling - Blue Notice - Canonical
-
Hi,
I have 270x blue notices within crawl diagnostics in SEOMoz Pro labelled rel=canonical.
My site has the rel=canonical tag set-up as I was advised to do so.
Are these notices suggesting I have to remove the tag?
Can somebody please explain this notice to me ..
Thanks
Olly
-
Thanks Craig, appreciate your help.
-
Hi Oliver,
The blue notices are only there to highlight things that you might want to be aware of. These are not always bad things and looking at your site, it looks like you have implemented it correctly. The notice is really just to remind you that the rel=canonical is there in case you were not aware or you are auditing a clients site that you don't have experience with.
Craig
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
-
ASP Canonical and Internal Linking
Hello - I'm working with a large ASP website and trying to troubleshoot issues I believe might be related to how the canonical element is used. On page - all internal links, including navigation links, use the following format (uppercase) - website.com**/F**older/Folder/Product . So, any page navigated to will always display the uppercase version of the URL. And, all of these pages have the canonical tag pointing to the lowercase version of the URL. The pages included in Google's index are all lowercase versions of the URL like this - website.com**/f**older/folder/product . My concern is that a lot of internal authority flow is being impacted/negated because all internal links point to the uppercase versions of URLs and all those pages reference the lowercase version URL in the canonical reference. Is this a valid concern?
On-Page Optimization | | LA_Steve0 -
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
On-Page Optimization | | Jacksons_Fencing0 -
Using Canonical Tags on Every Page
I'm doing competitive research and noticed that one of our competitors (who outranks us) uses canonical tags on every page on their site. The canonical tags reference the page they are on. For example. www.competitor.com/product has a canonical tag of www.competitor.com/product. Does anyone use this practice? It seems strange to me. Thank you, Kristen
On-Page Optimization | | Ksink0 -
What is the Impact of Canonical to a Canonical Page?
hey folks, How does google respond to this, canonical to a canonical page? i.e page A is canonical to Page which is already/also canonical to PAGE C. Thanks In advance AK
On-Page Optimization | | AnkammaRao0 -
301 redirected Duplicate Content, still showing up as duplicate after new crawl.
We launched a site where key landing pages were not showing up in google. After running the seomoz crawl it returned a lot of duplicate pages which may expalin this. The actual url of the page is /design and it was telling me the following were dupes: /design/family-garden-design
On-Page Optimization | | iterate
/design/small-garden-design
/design/large-rural-garden-design
/Design All of these URL's were in fact pointing to the /design landing page. I 301 redirected all of the pages so they all now resolve to /design After running another crawl the day after doing this it's still showing up as duplicate content on seomoz. Does seomoz evaluate the new changes right away?0 -
Rel canonical tag back to the same page the tag is on?
Very simple, Why would a website (and I have seen tons doing this) link the rel canonical tag back to the same page the tag is on? Example: somepage.htm has a canonical tag linking to somepage.htm I thought the idea of this tag was to tell google if 2 pages are similar, this page is the original, and it's this page which should be indexed and the page with the tag on should pass all PR to the original. Maybe im wrong and someone can help me out to understand this.
On-Page Optimization | | activitysuper0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0 -
Not making a change of the 100's in crawl Diagnostic
Based on the PRO crawl Diagnostics – if we don’t make a change on 1 page, does that just affect the SEO on that one page, or does it affect the SEO on all pages of the site? E.g. If we get a “Too many on page links” for a certain page that we don’t really want to rank for – does not fixing that particlaur page affect the site as a whole? Hope I explained this ok..
On-Page Optimization | | inhouseninja0