Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Should the canonical tag for the redirected pages be changed

Technical SEO

589

Locked

AnahitG last edited by

Hi!

Does anyone know if the canonical tag of the old redirected page should be changed, and include the URL of the new destination?

Thanks in advance.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
AnahitG last edited by

Thank you so much, Andreas!
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
paints-n-design last edited by

If you redirect the page, there is no canonical on that page anymore. The page simply doesn't exist anymore. Make sure the redirect-target is a self-canonical page, thats all.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0

Browse Questions

View

From

Sorted by

With category

Explore more categories

Related Questions

Rel=canonical and redirect on same page

Hi Guys, Am I going slightly mad but why would you want to have a redirect and a canonical redirecting back to the same page. For Instance https://handletrade.co.uk/pull-handles/pull-handles-zcs-range/d'-pull-handle-19mm-dia.-19-x-150mm-ss/?tag=Dia.&page=2 and in the source code:- <link href="<a class="attribute-value">https://handletrade.co.uk/d'-pull-handle-19mm-dia.-19-x-150mm-ss/</a>" rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" /> Perfect! exactly what it is intended to do. But then this page is 301 redirected tohttps://handletrade.co.uk/pull-handles/pull-handles-zcs-range/d'-pull-handle-19mm-dia.-19-x-150mm-ss/ The site is built in open cart and I think it's the SEO plugin that needs tweaking. Could this cause poor SERP visibility? This is happening across the whole site. Surely the canonical should just point to the proper page and then there is no need for an additional bounce.
Technical SEO | | nezona

1
Redirecting Canonical Hostnames

Hi, I want to rewrite all the url pages of "site.com" to "www.site.com". I read the moz redirection article and i concluded that this would be the best approach. RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.seomoz.org [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.seomoz.org/$1 [L,R=301]. But i recieved this error: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@localhost and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. I tried this rewrite too... RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [L,R=301] It worked but it just rewriting my domain** "site.com"** and not all the subs "site.com/fr/example.php" to "www.site.com" Why it doesn't work properly, it seem to be easy... Could it be a hosting problem? Is there another way to do it? <address> </address> <address> </address> <address> </address> <address> </address>
Technical SEO | | bigrat95

0
Effect of 302 redirects from empty parent page to sub page

A client's website has links to their service pages which then redirect (302 through a php "Location:" header) to that service's first sub-page. For example, our-services/service-x redirects to our-services/service-x/about-service-x I can only think this has been done because there is no actual content for the parent page and to maintain some kind of structure for navigation and URLs. Really there's no reason why the 'about-service-x' page can't be removed and its content transferred to the main 'service-x' page. Then the redirects can be removed also - it's not how a 302 should be used for a start. I'm just wondering what kind of effect this current redirection has on SEO, as I know 302s don't pass any link juice? Thanks for your help.
Technical SEO | | driftingbass

0
Why is google not deindexing pages with the meta noindex tag?

On our website www.keystonepetplace.com we added the meta noindex tag to category pages that were created by the sorting function. Google no longer seems to be adding more of these pages to the index, but the pages that were already added are still in the index when I check via site:keystonepetplace.com Here is an example page: http://www.keystonepetplace.com/dog/dog-food?limit=50 How long should it take for these pages to disappear from the index?
Technical SEO | | JGar-220371

0
Canonical Tag Here?

Hello, I have a client who I have taken on (different to my other client in another question), My client has a ecommerce website and in nearly all of his products (around 30-40) he has a little information checklist like.. Made in the UK
Prices from 9.99
Top quality
Free delivery on orders over.. This is the duplicate content, what is the best practise for this as the SEOmoz crawler is giving me a multiple of errors.
Technical SEO | | Prestige-SEO

0
Problems with changing the page title on Wordpress Site...

The website is http://www.masterpieceinteriors.co.uk/ I'm not sure why the homepage title is reading 'masterpieces' in Google but looks fine here. There seem to be 2 versions of the homepage coming up in google - you can see them both by searching 'masterpieceinteriors' and then 'masterpiece interiors'. Some help would be hugely appreciated!
Technical SEO | | Opiyo

0
Will changing page extensions from .html to .php require a redirect?

Hi. We are launching a new website and our .html page extensions will be replaced with a .php page extension. Example: www.theideapeople.com/web_design.html (current url) www.theideapeople.com/web_design.php (new url) Will this require any special treatment to maintain the page SEO ranking? Does it make a difference if you use a .html or .php? Thank you for your help and insight! Jay
Technical SEO | | theideapeople

0
Is having "rel=canonical" on the same page it is pointing to going to hurt search?

i like the rel=canonical tag and i've seen matt cutts posts on google about this tag. for the site i'm working on, it's a great workaround because we often have two identical or nearly identical versions of pages: 1 for patients, 1 for doctors. the problem is this: the way our content management system is set up, certain pages are linked up in a number of places and when we publish, two different versions of the page are created, but same content. because they are both being made from the same content templates, if i put in the rel=canonical tag, both pages get it. so, if i have: http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp and http://www.myhospital.com/professional-condition.asp and they are both produced from the same template, and have the same content, and i'm trying to point search at http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp, but that tag appears on both pages similarly, we have various forms and we like to know where people are coming from on the site to use those forms. to the bots, it looks like there's 600 versions of particular pages, so again, rel=canonical is great. however, because it's actually all the same page, just a link with a variable tacked on (http://www.myhospital.com/makeanappointment.asp?id=211) the rel=canonical tag will appear on "all" of them. any insight is most appreciated! thanks! brett
Technical SEO | | brett_hss

0