REL CANONİCAL
-
Hi,
The Original Page: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/
Page 2: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/?sayfa=2
Page 3: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/?sayfa=3
Page 4:http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/?sayfa=4
we added this rel="canonical" href="http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/evden-eve-nakliyat-firmalari/" /> tag all these pages
Is it right?
-
There is no SEO software can help you determine if you have implemented correctly the canonical links(which page you are targeting with optimization). What they can do is to notice you about the fact that you have a canonical link present on that specific page. Which data you can export and analyze. Unfortunately this means a lot of manual work for you or your team.
Just think about the fact that you might Point a Canonical link from Page A -> Page A and from Page B-> Page B (because you have a script that will point a canonical to itself). Eventually these two pages are the same, it will be quite confusing to a search engine, right?
Or Page A -> Page B, Page B-> Page C and so on... that's also something that you would like to avoid.
Another case Page A -> Page B, Page B -> Page A.
With exporting the data that SEOmoz gives you and analyzing it in Excel (or a similar program), you will have the chance to avoid these problems.
I hope it helped and cleared the picture a little-bit
Istvan
-
I am not sure but i guess It is simply notifying you that you are doing this.. it sis not necessarily bad! similar to... lets say for some reason you are using 302 redirection instead of 301 so in that case SEOmoz will add 302 redirection under notice tab so that you know what you are doing and if this is not something you like just switch things accordingly!
for exact reasons i guess you should email to [email protected]
-
Thank you Moosa Hemani,
So why SEOMOZ show us the rel=canonical in Crawl Notices, i do not understand
We use this tag in 157 pages -
real canonical... thats perfect!
-
congrats, you did it correctly
-
Yes, that looks right. Have the placed it within the sections of the pages?
-
yep.
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
-
No Follow & Rel Canon for Product Filters
Our site uses Canonicals to address duplicate content issues with product/facet filtering. example: www.mysite.com/product?color=blue Relcanon= www.mysite.com/product However, our site is also using no follow for all of the "filters" on a page (so all ?color=, etc. links are no follow). What is the benefit of utilizing the no follow on the filters if we have the rel canon in place? Is this an effort to save crawl budget? Are we giving up possible SEO juice by having the no follow and not having the crawler get to the canonical tag and subsequently reference the main page? Is this just something we just forget about? I hope we're not giving up SEO juice by
Technical SEO | | Remke0 -
Should we rel=nofollow these links ?
On our website, we have a section of free to low-cost tools that could help small business increase their productivity without spending big bucks. For example, this is the page for online collaboration tools: http://www.bdc.ca/EN/solutions/smart_tech/tech_advice/free_low_cost_applications/Pages/online_collaboration_tools.aspx None of the company pay anything to be on these list. We actually do quite a lot of research to chose which should be listed there and which should not. Recently, one of the company in our lists asked us to add rel=nofollow to the link to their website because they add been targeted by a manual action on Google and want their link profile to be as clean as possible (probably too clean). My question is : Should we add rel=nofollow to all these links ? Thanks, Jean-François Monfette
Technical SEO | | jfmonfette0 -
ECommerce Problem with canonicol , rel next , rel prev
Hi I was wondering if anyone willing to share your experience on implementing pagination and canonical when it comes to multiple sort options . Lets look at an example I have a site example.com ( i share the ownership with the rest of the world on that one 😉 ) and I sell stuff on the site example.com/for-sale/stuff1 example.com/for-sale/stuff2 example.com/for-sale/stuff3 etc I allow users to sort it by date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on . So now we have example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value etc example.com/for-sale/stuff1 **has the same result as **example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added ( that is the default sort option ) similarly for stuff2, stuff3 and so on. I cant 301 these because these are relevant for users who come in to buy from the site. I can add a view all page and rel canonical to that but let us assume its not technically possible for the site and there are tens of thousands of items in each of the for-sale pages. So I split it up in to pages of x numbers and let us assume we have 50 pages to sort through. example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a&page=2 to ...page=50 example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value&page=2 to ...page=50 etc This is where the shit hits the fan. So now if I want to avoid duplicate issue and when it comes to page 30 of stuff1 sorted by date do I add rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 or rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29 None of this feels right to me . I am thinking of using GWT to ask G-bot not to crawl any of the sort parameters ( date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on ) and use rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=30 rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31 rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29 My doubts about this is that , will the link value that goes in to the pages with parameters be consolidated when I choose to ignore them via URL Parameters in GWT ? what do you guys think ?
Technical SEO | | Saijo.George0 -
Duplicate Page content / Rel=Cannonical
My SEO Moz crawl is showing duplicate content on my site. What is showing up are two articles I submitted to Submit your article (article submission service). I put their code in to my pages i.e. " <noscript><b>This article will only display in JavaScript enabled browsers.</b></noscript> " So do I need to delete these blog posts since they are showing up as dup content? I am having a difficult time understanding rel=cannonical. Isn't this for dup content on within one site? So I could not use rel="cannonical" in this instance? What is the best way to feature an article or press release written for another site, but that you want your clients to see? Rewritting seem ridiculous for a small business like ours. Can we just present the link? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | RoxBrock0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Does it make sense to use rel=author on every page?
If you assume that rel=author increases click through rate in SERPs, would it be a good or bad idea to implement it on every page on your site?
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs0 -
Should I be using use rel=author in this case?
We have a large blog, which it appears one of our regional blogs (managed separately) is simply scraping content off of our blog and adding it to theirs. Would adding rel=author (for all of our guest bloggers) help eliminate google seeing the regional blog content as scraped or duplicate? Is rel=author the best solution here?
Technical SEO | | VistageSEO0 -
Is there a work around for Rel Canonical without header access?
In my work as an SEO writer, I work closely with web designers and usually have behind the scenes access. However, the last three clients who hired me have web designers that are not allowing admin access to anyone else (including the clients) outside of their companies/small business. Is there a work around for the Rel Canonical element that usually is placed in the header? I am using All-In-One-SEO plug-in to address part of this issue. Sage advice or discussion on this is appreciated!
Technical SEO | | TheARKlady0