Appropriate use of rel canonical
-
Hey Guys,I'm a bit stuck. My on-page grade indicated the following two issues and I need to find how how to fix both issues.If you have a solution, could you please let me know how to address these issues? It's all a bit intimidating at the moment!!Thank you so much..****************************************************************************************************************************************Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.
Recommendation: We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.
No More Than One Canonical URL Tag
The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag.
Recommendation: Remove all but a single canonical URL tag
-
Yeah, I'd really tackle this error first, as the other one could be a false alarm. It sounds like you've got multiple canonical tags on a single page, which Google can't interpret very well (and that might just ignore it or use the wrong one). This often indicates that your CMS is double-placing tags and could signal broader problems.
-
Since the error message you get is "no more than one canonical URL tag," I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the affected pages have more than one canonical.
You can check this by looking at the source code of the page (which you can do by going into the menu of whatever browser you are using and choosing "page source" or "view source"- it is different in different browsers- look around or use the browser's help feature) and doing a search for rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>"; this should only appear once. If it appears more than once, remove the ones you don't want.
The canonical should be the URL of the page that you want Google to see as the one to index and return in results. For example, if you are using canonicals because you have tracking codes appended to a URL and that creates the appearance of duplicate content, use the URL without the codes as the canonical one.
Just remember that when you put a canonical URL on a page, you are telling Google to ignore the actual URL of that page and consider it to be the canonical URL instead.
-
I will try and find out all of this information... Just give me a bit of time to figure it out. Thanks for being helpful.. I'm loving moz to death! It's a great community
-
First don't worry we are here for you! Second to me "Rel=" is one of the more misunderstood tools and there are a lot of questions surrounding it's implementation. Here are a few reference points to learn from as well.
- http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
- http://moz.com/community/q/fixing-appropriate-use-of-rel-canonical
- http://www.webceo.com/blog/how-to-use-relcanonical-properly/
- Is there an Advantage of using Rel=”canonical” over 301 redirect? By Matt Cutts
Ok so first how are you currently using the tag? Could you post a screenshot or code example as well as a link to the site? Basically you want to make sure that you are using the Tag as a way to deal with duplicate or similar pages as a way to tell Search Engines what the master version of the page is. In my opinion I would try very hard to avoid dupes and normalize URLs in the first place, meaning the tag is more of a last resort option after you have exhausted other methods. Also there are so many ways a Rel="canonical" can go wrong so seeing how your implementing it would help. So try to let us see how your using it as that would help me give a more targeted solution.
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
-
How does a page with a canonical for another domain impact SEO?
Hi, We have a requirement to host files that contains .html, .css, .js, and .pdf files externally on AWS S3 bucket. We have a landing page on our site that contains a link to those external links (i.e. pdf). On our site's (hosted on Drupal), landing page we already have a canonical link for the current landing page. On the .html file which is hosted externally, we were thinking to add the same canonical link that exists for the landing page so that search engines will go to the externally available .html file and interpret that the externally hosted file is related to our landing page. I was wondering if this is an acceptable solution without any SEO penalty. If there is a penalty, what would be the alternative solution to this so we can host files externally and drive most of the traffic to our landing page? Example Landing page: absolute url = https://www.site-domain.com/page-url ...... Externally available .html file (static) ......
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KendallHershey0 -
Putting rel=canonical tags on blogpost pointing to product pages
I came across an article mentioning this as a strategy for getting product pages (which are tough to get links for) some link equity. See #21: content flipping: https://www.matthewbarby.com/customer-acquisition-strategies Has anyone done this? Seems like this isn't what the tag is meant for, and Google may see this as deceptive? Any thoughts? Jim
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jim_shook0 -
Case Sensitive URLs, Duplicate Content & Link Rel Canonical
I have a site where URLs are case sensitive. In some cases the lowercase URL is being indexed and in others the mixed case URL is being indexed. This is leading to duplicate content issues on the site. The site is using link rel canonical to specify a preferred URL in some cases however there is no consistency whether the URLs are lowercase or mixed case. On some pages the link rel canonical tag points to the lowercase URL, on others it points to the mixed case URL. Ideally I'd like to update all link rel canonical tags and internal links throughout the site to use the lowercase URL however I'm apprehensive! My question is as follows: If I where to specify the lowercase URL across the site in addition to updating internal links to use lowercase URLs, could this have a negative impact where the mixed case URL is the one currently indexed? Hope this makes sense! Dave
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | allianzireland0 -
Risk Using "Nofollow" tag
I have a lot of categories (like e-commerce sites) and many have page 1 - 50 for each category (view all not possible). Lots of the content on these pages are present across the web on other websites (duplicate stuff). I have added quality unique content to page 1 and added "noindex, follow" to page 2-50 and rel=next prev tags to the pages. Questions: By including the "follow" part, Google will read content and links on pages 2-50 and they may think "we have seen this stuff across the web….low quality content and though we see a noindex tag, we will consider even page 1 thin content, because we are able to read pages 2-50 and see the thin content." So even though I have "noindex, follow" the 'follow' part causes the issue (in that Google feels it is a lot of low quality content) - is this possible and if I had added "nofollow" instead that may solve the issue and page 1 would increase chance of looking more unique? Why don't I add "noindex, nofollow" to page 2 - 50? In this way I ensure Google does not read the content on page 2 - 50 and my site may come across as more unique than if it had the "follow" tag. I do understand that in such case (with nofollow tag on page 2-50) there is no link juice flowing from pages 2 - 50 to the main pages (assuming there are breadcrumbs or other links to the indexed pages), but I consider this minimal value from an SEO perspective. I have heard using "follow" is generally lower risk than "nofollow" - does this mean a website with a lot of "noindex, nofollow" tags may hurt the indexed pages because it comes across as a site Google can't trust since 95% of pages have such "noindex, nofollow" tag? I would like to understand what "risk" factors there may be. thank you very much
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
This is a clear-cut canonical issue, right?
Hello, A client is having one of their daily blogs published on a industry news site along with on their own site. This is a clear-cut case of having a canonical tag implemented on the client's site on each blog page, right? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Martin_S0 -
Scanning For Duplicate Canonical Tags
I'm looking for a solution for identifying pages on a site that have either empty/undefined canonical tags, or duplicate canonical tags (meaning the tag occurs twice within the same page). I've used Screaming Frog to view sitewide canonical values, but the tool cannot identify when pages use the tag twice, nor can it differentiate between pages that have an empty canonical tag and pages that have no canonical tag at all. Any help finding a tool of some sort that can assist me in doing this would be much appreciated, as I'm working with tens of thousands of pages and can't do this manually.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edmundsseo0 -
Do Google use HTTPS as a trust indicator?
Scenario: Two sites, exactly the same with a form to capture customer details on the home page (e.g. name, address). Would Google rank a site that uses HTTPS over a site that uses HTTP? From what I've heard, they would trust the HTTPS site more than HTTP and therefore rank it higher. Forum opinions?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0 -
Not using a robot command meta tag
Hi SEOmoz peeps. Was doing some research on robot commands and found a couple major sites that are not using them. If you check out the code for these: http://www.amazon.com http://www.zappos.com http://www.zappos.com/product/7787787/color/92100 http://www.altrec.com/ You fill not find a meta robot command line. Of course you need the line for any noindex, nofollow, noarchive pages. However for pages you want crawled and indexed, is there any benefit for not having the line at all? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | STPseo0