Correct Implementation Of Canonical Tags
-
Hopefully this is an easy one to answer.
When canonical tags are added to web pages should there be a canonical tag on a page that canonicalizes(?) (new word!?) back to itself.
i.e. four page all point back to page Z. On page Z there is a canonical tag that points to page Z?
My feeling without any technical know how is that this is just creating an infinite loop i.e. go to this page for original content, (repeat)
Or this could be completely correct!
Don't want to go back to the developer and point out the error if I'm wrong!
-
I think that this is the video that was mentioned by Rich. It goes back to 2011. Matt does say that he can't account for other search engines, but Google is cool with using a rel="canonincal" tag to point to "itself."
-
Awesome - thanks for the quick responses!
-
Hey there
Having a self referring canonical tag, as it were, is something I'd recommend for a couple of reasons.
As you have pointed out, canonical tags can help remove the chance of other duplicate pages getting indexed. However, Google will indexes URLs and one physical page can have a number of different URLs. For example, if your website has a search function of anything else that might produce a query string (like domain.com/page?query), these URLs can also be indexed and would be seen as duplicate content by Google.
There would not be a physical page to apply the tag to, but if you add a self referring canonical tag, any dynamic URL that is generated by your CMS should not be indexed, helping to limit the chance of any duplicate content penalty.
Furthermore, I believe that having a tag on your page protects you somewhat from scrapers and people stealing your content. If your page is indexed first with your tag, any syndicated or duplicate versions from 3rd parties in theory should not be able to rank that content.
You look at places like Search Engine Land and they have these self referring canonicals too.
Hope this helps. Enjoy your weekend!
-
You can canoncical to the same page yes, i saw a video or blog from Matt Cutts just the other week confirming this but cant for the life of me find it again now. Will pop the link on here if i find it unless anyone else in the community can provide confirmation before hand.
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
-
Hreflang and canonical
Hi all, I'm hoping someone can help me solve this once and for all! I keep getting hreflang errors on our site crawls and I cannot understand why. Does anything here look off to you? Thank you! JGdWcqu
Technical SEO | | eGInnovations1 -
Non-standard HTML tags in content
I had coded my website's article content with a non-standard tag <cnt>that surrounded other standard tags that contained the article content, I.e.</cnt> , . The whole text was enclosed in a div that used Schema.org markup to identify the contents of the div as the articleBody. When looking at scraped data for stories in Webmaster Tools, the content of the story was there and identified as the articleBody correctly. It's recently been suggested by someone else that the presence of the non-standard <cnt>tags were actually making the content of the article uncrawlable by the Googlebot, this effectively rendering the content invisible. I did not believe this to be true, since the content appeared to be correctly indexed in Webmaster Tools, but for the sake of a test I agreed to removing them. In the last 6 weeks since they were removed, there have been no changes in impressions or traffic from organic search, which leads me to believe that the removal of the <cnt>tags actually had no effect, since the content was already being indexed successfully and nothing else has changed.</cnt></cnt> My question is whether or not an encapsulating non-standard tag as I've described would actually make the content invisible to Googlebot, or if it should not have made any difference so long as the correct Schema.org markup was in place? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | dlindsey0 -
Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google?
Hi, we re-branded and launched a new website in February 2016. In June we saw a steep drop in the number of URLs indexed, and there have continued to be smaller dips since. We started an account with Moz and found several thousand high priority crawl errors for duplicate pages and have since fixed those with canonical tags. However, we are still seeing the number of URLs indexed drop. Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google? I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this. A good portion of our URLs have canonical tags because they are just events with different dates, but otherwise the content of the page is the same.
Technical SEO | | zasite0 -
Rel=canonical on Godaddy Website builder
Hey crew! First off this is a last resort asking this question here. Godaddy has not been able to help so I need my Moz Fam on this one. So common problem My crawl report is showing I have duplicate home pages www.answer2cancer.org and www.answer2cancer.org/home.html I understand this is a common issue with apache webservers which is why the wonderful rel=canonical tag was created! I don't want to go through the hassle of a 301 redirect of course for such a simple issue. Now here's the issue. Godaddy website builder does not make any sense to me. In wordpress I could just go add the tag to the head in the back end. But no such thing exist in godaddy. You have to do this weird drag and drop html block and drag it somewhere on the site and plug in the code. I think putting before the code instead of just putting it in there. So I did that but when I publish and inspect in chrome I cannot see the tag in the head! This is confusing I know. the guy at godaddy didn't stand a chance lol. Anyway much love for any replies!
Technical SEO | | Answer2cancer0 -
Are correcting missing meta descrption tags a good use of time?
My modest website (shew-design.com) has pulled up nearly sixty crawl errors. Almost all of them are missing meta description tags. One friend who knows SEO better than me says that adding meta tags to EVERY page is not a good use of time. My site is available at shew-design.com I'm just getting started in being serious about applying SEO to our site and I want to make sure I'm making the best use of my time. The other error I'm getting are duplicate page names within different directories (e.g. getting started (for branding), getting started (for web). Is this a huge priority? Would welcome your feedback.
Technical SEO | | Eric_Shew0 -
Why put rel=canonical to the same url ?
Hi all. I've heard that it's good to put the link rel canonical in your header even when there is no other important or prefered version of that url. If you take a look at moz.com and see the code, you'll see that they put the <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://moz.com" /> ... pointing at the same url ! But if you go to http://moz.com/products/pricing for example, they have no canonical there ! WHY ? Thanks in advance !
Technical SEO | | Tintanus0 -
Vimeo Rich Snippet correct?
Goodday MOZ-friends 😉 We added our video to Vimeo PRO and added it to our website. (http://www.sitetogo.nl/) We also added a XML (http://www.sitetogo.nl/sitemap-video.xml) I'm not sure if we done this correctly. Can anybody tell me this? Thanks & Greetings, Vincent / www.sitetogo.nl
Technical SEO | | Aquaster0