Google +1 not recognizing rel-canonical
-
So I have a few pages with the same content just with a different URL.
http://nadelectronics.com/products/made-for-ipod/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System
http://nadelectronics.com/products/speakers/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System
http://nadelectronics.com/products/digital-music/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System
All pages rel-canonical to:
http://nadelectronics.com/products/made-for-ipod/VISO-1-iPod-Music-SystemMy question is... why can't google + (or facebook and twitter for that matter) consolidate all these pages +1. So if the first two had 5 +1 and the rel-canonical page had 5 +1's. It would be nice for all pages to display 15 +1's not 5 on each.
It's my understanding that Google +1 will gives the juice to the correct page. So why not display all the +1's at the same time.
Hope that makes sense.
-
For facebook, if you use the proper open graph meta data your Likes will be consolidated.
With respect to Google +1, I can share my viewpoint and best guess. You are presently choosing to canonicalize these pages, but they are in fact separate web pages. You can choose to remove the canonical tag at any time so the data needs to be tracked separately.
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
-
When will all of Google Maps be the same again?
As many of you are aware that the pigeon update was only applied to the new Google maps resulting in very different search results for Google local business. When you search for a business on old Google maps then you get totally different results vs the new Google maps. Some businesses totally disappeared completely from the search results. I have done my research and found out that it's because the new Algo was only applied to the new maps. Also new algo does not apply to other countries. Well the reason I posted this topic is because I have noticed that all the new Google Business listings I am verifying for my clients are all being put under the old Google maps and not the new ones. They come up fine when searching from old maps but not the new ones. I understand Google has not rolled out the pigeon on all data centers but why? Will Google eventually roll out the update to old maps? Since Google is adding businesses to old google maps then what's the point of even adding new listings?
Technical SEO | | bajaseo0 -
Canonicals being ignored
Hi, I've got a site that I'm working with that has 2 ways of viewing the same page - a property details page. Basically one version if the long version: /property/Edinburgh/Southside-Newington/6CN99V and the other just the short version with the code only on the end: /6cn99v There is a canonical in place from the short version to the long version, and the sitemap.xml only lists the long version HOWEVER - Google is indexing the short version in the majority of cases (not all but the majority). http://www.website.com/property/Edinburgh/Southside-Newington/6CN99V"> Obviously "www.website.com" contains the URL of the site itself. Any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | squarecat.ben0 -
Google not showing my website ?
The website is medicare.md. if you search for term "medicare doctors PG county maryland" it is #1 in bing and yahoo but not even showing on google.com first TEN pages, although not banned. Interestingly if you do that search on google.co.pk it is #4. Quite Puzzuling !! Would appreciate any help or advice . Sherif Hassan
Technical SEO | | sherohass0 -
Ranking on google.com.au but not google.com
Hi there, we (www.refundfx.com.au) rank on google.com.au for some keywords that we target, but we do not rank at all on google.com, is that because we only use a .com.au domain and not a .com domain? We are an Australian company but our customers come from all over the world so we don't want to miss out on the google.com searches. Any help in this regard is appreciated. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | RefundFX0 -
Google Penalty?
Hi, I have recently been asked to help www.mycanvas.ie I have a feeling they have a google penalty. All their Google Keywords have literally dropped out of the Google SERP but they are still shown on Yahoo SERP. I recently did a site:www.mycanvas.ie and the pages are still in google index. The only thing that comes to mind is that the site owner submitted to 380 web directories over a period of 2 months with http://www.directorymaximizer.com/ do you think this could be causing the problem with google? Advise and suggestions are welcomed, thank you.
Technical SEO | | Socialdude0 -
301 or Rel=canonical
Should I use a 301 redirect for redirect mywebsite.com to www.mywebsite.com or use a rel=canonical?? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | LeslieVS0 -
Rel="canonical" for PFDs?
Hello there, We have a lot of PDFs that seem to end up on other websites. I was wondering if there was a way to make sure that our website gets the credit/authority as the original creator. Besides linking directly from the PDF copy to our pages, is anyone aware of strategy for letting Google know that we are the original publishers? I know search engines can index HTML versions of PDFs, so is there anyway to get them to index a rel="canonical" tag as well? Thoughts/Ideas?
Technical SEO | | Tektronix0 -
Confused about rel="canonical"
I'm receiving a duplicate content error in my reports for www.example.com and www.example.com/index.htm. Should I put the rel="canonical" on the index page and point it to www.example.com? And if I have other important pages where rel="canonical" is being suggested do I place the rel="canonical" on that page? For example if www.example/product is an important page would I place on that page?
Technical SEO | | BrandonC-2698870