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!
-
Agree with Dave's comments. 1) Get the syntax updated on your canonical links at a minimum. 2) Yes your canonical solution will "work", but it is not best practice. This "solution" is really a last resort. I would try and push to move away from using canonicals this way. You optimally want 1 URL.
Just to add some color, a great / classic video on this was made by Matt Cutts. He gives all kinds of examples where you could have duplicate URLs, i.e. www vs non www subdomain, sorting parameters added onto the URL, different file extensions, capitalization changes, etc. He then gives 3 options to fix them.
-
Best practice: Fix your site where you only have one URL per content item and link to it consistently (Best solution)
-
Use 301 redirects to consolidate to one URL (Next best solution)
-
Use a canonical link, if you cannot do 1 or 2. (Last resort)
Note that Matt says that they treat a canonical as a strong suggestion (it is treated similar to a 301), but they do not always have to follow it. He repeatedly says, use the first two options, and would NOT recommend a canonical as your best or first option.
My favorite quote is at 2:24 in the video, "Developers keep SEOs in business"
What your developer may notice is that Matt does say that using a canonical link for consolidating http and https will work. No one here would say that it would not, it is just not optimal. Sure, you can use a pair of scissors to cut your lawn, "it will work". It doesn't mean it's the best idea. I would think any developer worth his/her salt would want to have "clean code" and having duplicate URLs is not "clean" by SEO standards
Ok, so now you need to go back to the developer or your manager with an argument that is stronger than just, "Well, some random dude on the Moz forum said that Matt Cutt's from Google said it was preferred not to use a canonical link even though it would work". I would never want to leave you in such a position. Here is what will/can happen over time if you stay with your current setup.
-
Report consolidation issues. When you look at GA for traffic or OSE for links, any spidering tool for technical issues, social sharing counts, you now have split data for any given page potentially. Sure there are ways around this, but now you have to spend all your time "fixing" reports that should not be broken to start with. Trust me, this will come back to bite you on the bum and will cripple your efforts to show the efficacy of your SEO work. Now who really wants that?
-
Link juice consolidation issues. With any redirect - you lose a bit of link juice. If you have links to both sets of URLs, any single page is not getting as much credit as it should.
-
Down the line 301 redirect bloat. If you ever change anything and need to setup a 301 redirect, now you have to setup 2 of them and having too many 301s can negatively impact server performance.
One last thing. If you can get the URLs consolidated into one using 301s etc. Go with the https That is the way that we are headed with the web and so you might as well get going in that direction.
Good luck!
-
-
I really appreciate the response and the added information. I guess we will see if anyone else responds!
-
I'd be interested in hearing what someone else has to say about the way the canonicals are coded. You're doing yours similar to the way I do DNS Prefetching with the double slash to start the URL:
It works fine with prefetching as all the browser needs to do is find the IP of the domain but I'm not sure here how it'll handle sub-directories including www and I hate variables even when they're "it should work". The more common way to canonicalize your secured page would be:
/>
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any direct experience with this but at the core of technical SEO issues I always lean to "most common usage" and "how Google shows it in their examples" just to make sure there is minimal chance of hiccups or issues.
That aside though, the developer is right though I'd always still prefer to just see the pages at a single URL. Since that can't be done however ... canonicals are the way to go.
-
That is correct! Here is an example of two URL's of what i'm talking about:
http://www.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinship
https://agrouptt4.secure2.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinshipDoes this help clarify my question? I hope so!
-
I'm not sure I entirely understand the scenario so let me note how I'm hearing it to make sure my understanding is correct to put the answer into context. Please do let me know if my understanding of the scenario is wrong as that may well change my thoughts on it.
You note that your secure site and live site are creating duplicate content. Of course a secure site can be live but I'm taking this to mean you have an area behind a login. That it's creating duplicate content is making me think that a lot of the core information is the same and I'm guessing many of the same pages.
If this is all correct and you can't put the duplicated pages onto one URL only then the canonicals are the way to go and your developer is correct.
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
-
Unsolved How many sites can I track with one subscription?
Hello, We are currently a MozPro medium member and we are tracking amlrightsource.com but we have other sites we'd like to track as well. Wondering if we can track more sites with this subscription?
Moz Pro | | KassandraSharr0 -
403 error for a member site
Perhaps a stupid question but SEOmoz registers 403 errors for pages behind a membersite (ie. they are restricted on purpose). Should I noindex these pages or just let SEOmoz register these "errors"?
Moz Pro | | Crunchii0 -
Duplicate pages with canonical links still show as errors
On our CMS, there are duplicate pages such as /news, /news/, /news?page=1, /news/?page=1. From an SEO perspective, I'm not too worried, because I guess Google is pretty capable of sorting this out, but to be on the safe side, I've added canonical links. /news itself has no link, but all the other variants have links to "/news". (And if you go wild and add a bunch of random meaningless parameters, creating /news/?page=1&jim=jam&foo=bar&this=that, we will laugh at you and generate a canonical link back to "/news". We're clever like that.) So far so good. And everything appears to work fine. But SEOMoz is still flagging up errors about duplicate titles and duplicate content. If you click in, you'll see a "Note" on each error, showing that SEOMoz has found the canonical link. So SEOMoz knows the duplication isn't a problem, as we're using canonical links exactly the way they're supposed to be used, and yet is still flagging it as an error. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is it just a bug in SEOMoz?
Moz Pro | | LockyDotser0 -
How do I increase domain authority? Real Estate SIte
I have a site that is just a few months old. How do I get the domain authority up?
Moz Pro | | bronxpad0 -
Can i force another crawl on my site to see if it recognizes my changes?
i had a problem w/dup content and titles on my site, i fixed them immediately and im wondering if i can run another crawl on my site to see if my changes were recognized thanks shaun
Moz Pro | | daugherty0 -
Factoring in OBL to Open Site Explorer
Morning all - I've been using Open Site Explorer a fair bit since I signed up to SEOMoz a couple of months ago and found it to be a little different to other tools in the past, so would welcome some thoughts on what I should be looking for when I run reports. For example, I've always thought that Outbound links should be important when deciding whether to place a link on a a particular site, but in OSE I'm only given a Page Ranking and a Domain Ranking. Am I therefore to understand that these two factors outrank OBL and that the number of links on a page don't matter? Or have these been factored into the overall Page rank already? Thanks a lot for your help,
Moz Pro | | theshortstack
Simon0 -
How often are open site explorer reports updated?
I collect the information contained in open site explorer reports and csv backlinks audits on the 15th of every month. I noticed that the numbers are unchanged from 9/15-10/15. How often are the reports typically updated?
Moz Pro | | seagreen0 -
Bing ranking my non-www version of my site.
My site is ranking #1 on Bing for the non-www version of my homepage, but this is not showing in my ranking stats, since the site is setup in SEOMOZ as www version. Do I have to create a whole new campaign for the non-www version or is there a way to pickup these rankings?
Moz Pro | | pdlcom0