Rel="canonical" again
-
Hello everyone,
I should rel="canonical" my 2 languages website /en urls to the original version without /en. Can I do this from the header.php? Should I rel="canonical" each /en page (eg. en/contatti, en/pagina) separately or can I do all from the general before the website title?
Thanks if someone can help.
-
So, if I understood, my code to have in the header.php of the website should be:
hope im right :)
-
NetLogiQ Thank you.
This answer solves a lot of tricks i had in my head
Thank you very much, I will better study the link you sent, and try to implement on my website. Footers etc. are not translated, so they remain in the original language.. But while reading, I think the solution can fit to my problem.
Thanks again!
Eugenio
-
Hi,
As I see it, you don't need to use a rel="Canonical" because your pages are not duplicates. You have content in italian and translated content in English.
The only thing you need to do is add a rel="alternate" hreflang="x"
This is what Google recommends in case your website is fully translated.
Some example scenarios where
rel="alternate" hreflang="x"
is recommended: For example, you have both German and English versions of each page. Here is how you implement it: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en1. Add a HTML link in the header - section for example:
2. HTTP header. If you publish non-HTML files (like PDFs), you can use an HTTP header to indicate a different language version of a URL: Link: <http: www.yourwebsite.eg="" en="">; rel="alternate"; hreflang="en".</http:>
-
hello james
Thanks for reply. I have original webpages in Italian. Translated webpages are in English. I use a plugin for wordpress, that allows me to translate the whole page (title, etc.) except the url, which will only be different because of the /en before the original page name (in italian, eg /en/contatti)
Widgets, footers etc. are still in Italian, even with translated pages.
I also thought about changing permalinks to be %postname%, so that url may adapt to title (? I think). But Im afraid this website wide urls change will affect my current rankings.
Any suggestion?
-
This is a response to both questions. Rel = canonical will give in this case the English page the authority, that should be the page that ranks well.
The main issue here is if the whole page is translated don't use a canonical tag, if the content stays in English and the Navigation/footer is changed use canonical tag to the English page as this would verge on duplicate content.
-
in fact, now that im thinking:
will not canonical confuse google if trying to rank also for the other language?
What will appear? this is duplicate in a sense, but is complete different content in the other sense.
Please correct me if im wrong..
-
this is what google replied to the same question, not very explicit at all!
"Canonical was not created to say that a language is another language, but that a duplicate page is just a variation and not the original page"
Im lost again
but i also now think that rel canonical is the solution..
-
Just to add in here and simplify the process, Wordpress has a built in function to return the current post/page URL. Make use of 'get_permalink()', with some simply string manipulation you would be able to output the correct canonical tag to your page.
Edit: My PHP is a little rusty at times, but the following should sort you out:
//Check if the page you're on is a single post. If so run below.
if ( is_single() ) {
$url = get_permalink();
$canonical = str_replace('/en', '', $url);echo '';
};
?>As mentioned above, put this into your header.php file (in the template directory), where you would like the canonical tag to appear.
-
He isn't trying to redirect he does want both pages.
Also canonical sitewide is problematic unless you add a customized conditional at the PHP level. He has a wordpress site and can't edit the raw HTML of every page so he needs to have a PHP string at the global level which changes based on page variables.
-
Hello,
1. Do not add a canonical sitewide tag - here is a case study on why http://moz.com/blog/catastrophic-canonicalization Long story short - he deindexed 57% of his website.
2. You could 301 redirect all the pages, instead of adding a rel canonical. If your /en version is a duplicate of the original version, then you could simply add a code that redirects each page to the relevant version, like this: RedirectMatch 301 ^/en/(.*)$ http://www.yourwebsite.en/$1
You can use that solution in the case where you have a website called www.mywebsite.com that has a www.mywebsite.com/en version for a lot of links if not all, and those are the ones indexed in Google. You just add that code into htaccess. So just replace mywebsite with your website.
-
I don't want to post the same answer as I did to your previous question but perhaps there was further clarification that you needed, that I missed!
Put a conditional in the header. Since you are using a wordpress platform you can't go in and manually edit each pages canonical anyway. Using the page if function and a variable you would be able to assign each one it's own rel= from a central head file anyway.
In an ideal situation you'd do each page manually but because of your CMS you need to do a work around
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
-
What is the recommended or "best practice" Permalink Structure?
I have always been under the impression that by connecting pages to their parent pages as described in a.) below is best practice and makes sense to me. a.) yoursite.com/category/sub-category/product/ b.) yoursite.com/product But then i also understand the importance in terms of link juice being spread out across so many sub pages, and by using Example b.) you keep the link juice in tact. Your thoughts on this? Greg
Technical SEO | | AndreVanKets0 -
Implementation of rel="next" & rel="prev"
Hi All, I'm looking to implement rel="next" & rel="prev", so I've been looking for examples. I looked at the source code for the MOZ.com forum, if anyone one is going to do it properly MOZ are. I noticed that the rel="next" & rel="prev" tags have been implemented in the a href tags that link to the previous and next pages rather than in the head. I'm assuming this is fine with Google but in their documentation they state to put the tags in the . Does it matter? Neil.
Technical SEO | | NDAY0 -
Wordpress "incoming search terms" plugin
Hello everyone! newbie to SEO and have been trying to keep everything nice and ethical but I've seen on a couple of blogs today "incoming search terms" at the bottom of the blogs, then a bullet pointed list of search terms beneath it. So I had a quick search about the use of it and noticed wordpress has a plugin that automatic ally generates these "incoming search terms". I ask is this a legitimate plugin or will this harm my blog? I assume it generally will as I can't see this being much use for the audience, rather it would be 100% for trying to lure in search engines.
Technical SEO | | acecream0 -
Campaign Issue: Rel Canonical - Does this mean it should be "on" or "off?"
Hello, somewhat new to the finer details of SEO - I know what canonical tags are, but I am confused by how SEOmoz identifies the issue in campaigns. I run a site on a wordpress foundation, and I have turned on the option for "canonical URLs" in the All in one SEO plugin. I did this because in all cases, our content is original and not duplicated from elsewhere. SEOmoz has identified every one of my pages with this issue, but the explanation of the status simply states that canonical tags "indicate to search engines which URL should be seen as the original." So, it seems to me that if I turn this OFF on my site, I turn off the notice from SEOmoz, but do not have canonical tags on my site. Which way should I be doing this? THANK YOU.
Technical SEO | | mrbradleyferguson0 -
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 -
Internal search : rel=canonical vs noindex vs robots.txt
Hi everyone, I have a website with a lot of internal search results pages indexed. I'm not asking if they should be indexed or not, I know they should not according to Google's guidelines. And they make a bunch of duplicated pages so I want to solve this problem. The thing is, if I noindex them, the site is gonna lose a non-negligible chunk of traffic : nearly 13% according to google analytics !!! I thought of blocking them in robots.txt. This solution would not keep them out of the index. But the pages appearing in GG SERPS would then look empty (no title, no description), thus their CTR would plummet and I would lose a bit of traffic too... The last idea I had was to use a rel=canonical tag pointing to the original search page (that is empty, without results), but it would probably have the same effect as noindexing them, wouldn't it ? (never tried so I'm not sure of this) Of course I did some research on the subject, but each of my finding recommanded one of the 3 methods only ! One even recommanded noindex+robots.txt block which is stupid because the noindex would then be useless... Is there somebody who can tell me which option is the best to keep this traffic ? Thanks a million
Technical SEO | | JohannCR0 -
Different levels of PA without "www"?
Hello Guy´s! The last days I have been surprised to see that the levels of PA, mR, and mT vary when it is or not the "www" in the URL: 1. http://patagonline.com/viajes-argentina 2. http://www.patagonline.com/viajes-argentina Both URL's correspond to the keyword "viajes Argentina" our incoming links... In this case, it´s convenient to do a 301redirect from URL 1 to 2? Thanks a lot for your help!!
Technical SEO | | maty0 -
Domain with or without "www"
Does it influence the search engine result if we have our domain name without the "www." ?
Technical SEO | | netbuilder0