Canonical for Mobile
-
Hi Guys, I am curious why in SEOMoz, our mobile site is showing to have the canonical tags used on the desktop site but when you double check the code of the mobile website it is showing m.domain.com Any thoughts on why we are seeing this? Also is there any lag in the code updates being reported through the SEOmoz toolset? Thanks for all your help! Cheers,
-
Can you paste what your code looks like. This sounds like to me that your canonical is dynamically gernerated by some code so it is taking the domain your page is located and using that instead of statically adding the domain. For instance with PHP some could add
$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] in the header. This will take whatever the current domain name is being served. So if you are looking at your website on a desktop then your the URL is www.example.com then you would see that. If you are at m.example.com then that would appear as the canonical. make sense?
Code updates generally take about a week to update.
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
-
Are AMP pages affecting mobile search visibility?
Hello fellow Mozzers. I've recently seen a fairly hefty drop in search visibility on Google mobile, from 12.8% to 4.1%. Desktop visibility is unaffected. The same search visibility drop is echoed in SEMRush. However, Google Analytics shows that our site traffic from mobile hasn't changed. The only thing I can think of is that we recently launched AMP pages. I know Google sometimes caches AMPs so they’re served off google domains. Could that mean that the cached version of the page is ranking rather than our own? That would explain the drop in visibility but stable traffic I think?! What other explanation could it be? Many thanks in advance, Kit
Moz Pro | | KitSmith0 -
Is your live site supposed to have rel canonical tags?
I recently started working for a company and got them to use Moz and I have found that our secure site and our live sites are creating "duplicate content" according to the Crawl Diagnostics feature. On our secure site we have rel canonical tags pointing to our live site. I'm not super familiar with rel canonical tags, but our developer says we're doing the right thing. Would love any insight you guys may have if this is actually duplicate content or not. Thanks so much!
Moz Pro | | Chase_Cleckner0 -
Duplicate content in crawl despite canonical
Hi! I've had a bunch of duplicate content issues come up in a crawl, but a lot of them seem to have canonical tags implemented correctly. For example: http://www.alwayshobbies.com/brands/aztec-imports/-catg=Fireplaces http://www.alwayshobbies.com/brands/aztec-imports/-catg=Nursery http://www.alwayshobbies.com/brands/aztec-imports/-catg=Turntables http://www.alwayshobbies.com/brands/aztec-imports/-catg=Turntables?page=0 Aztec http://www.alwayshobbies.com/brands/aztec-imports/-catg=Turntables?page=1 Any ideas on what's happening here?
Moz Pro | | neooptic0 -
Adding canonical still returns duplicate pages
According to SEOmoz, several of my campaigns show that I have duplicate pages (SEOmoz Errors). Upon reading more about how to resolve the issue, I followed SEOmoz's suggestion to add rel='canonical' <links>to each page. After the next SEOmoz crawl, the number of SEOmoz Errors related to duplicate pages remained the same and the number of SEOmoz notices shot up indicating that it recognized that I added rel='canonical'.</links> I'm still puzzled as to why the SEOmoz errors did not go down with respect to duplicate page errors after I added rel='canonical', especially since SEOmoz noticed that I added them. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks,
Moz Pro | | MOZ2
Scott.0 -
Why does Rel Canonical show up as a notice?
In the crawl diagnostics screen "Rel Canonical" shows up as a notice for every page that has a rel="canonical" meta tag in it. Why is this the case? Shouldn't every page have a canonical tag on it to show the absolute URL to the content? Wouldn't a better notice be to display pages that do not have a canonical tag instead? I could be wrong but that would make more sense to me. (In fact.. let's be honest here.. I probably am wrong.. but I'd like someone to explain it if they could.) Thanks
Moz Pro | | rrolfe1 -
Did anyone else see "Rel Canonical" drop to zero after their latest SEOmoz crawl?
In the Crawl Diagnostics section of the SEOmoz reports, we get errors in red, warnings in yellow, and notices in blue. After my latest crawl, I saw the "Rel Canonical" part go from about 300 down to 0. Obviously, this isn't right, so I'm wondering if this is a bug that everyone is experiencing. U9W5I
Moz Pro | | UnderRugSwept0 -
Why aren't canonical tags reducing duplicate page title/content?
We have canonical tags set up for a feature page on one of our sites. This site has an image gallery controlled by javascript. To aid the user experience the image can also be specified by a URL parameter (the javascript also uses this URL to fetch the images). The SEOMoz report complains that the links to these images have duplicate page titles and content. To try and combat this we set canonical tags to point only to the original page, without the slideshow parameter. e.g. http://www.example.com/feature-page/ http://www.example.com/feature-page/?slideshow=1 -> canonical tag set to http://www.example.com/feature-page/ http://www.example.com/feature-page/?slideshow=2 -> canonical tag set to http://www.example.com/feature-page/ The latest SEOMoz report has come back and the errors still exist. What can we do to remove these error messages? Thanks
Moz Pro | | TJSSEO1 -
Notice rel canonical
Hi, Why does my sites get the crawler notice for rel canonical when using the PRO account crawlers?? The canonical is there and it works, and to me it looks just like any other canonical link, the canonical is only at some links but not everyone, why is that?
Moz Pro | | careeron0