How to set up a rel canonical in big commmerce?
-
I have no clue how to set this up in the Bigcommerce store platform
-
Hi William,
I'm trying to solve the pagination errors in Big Commerce. In what way would I modify robots.txt to fix this?
Thanks!
Hal
-
Actually Carl, Big commerce should have rel=canonical automatically formed but unfortunately the automatically generated rel=canonical has errors.
For example:
Pagination issues.
For page 2 the rel canonical it generates points to page 2 rather than page 1(which is the main page)
http://www.troisfemmesboutique.com/brands/Ya-Los-Angeles.html - this is the main page
http://www.troisfemmesboutique.com/brands/Ya-Los-Angeles.html?page=2&sort=featured - this is page 2 (check the rel=canonical for this page, you will know what I mean)
And if you add content on the main page, it duplicates it to the inside pages too. So rel=canonical would be perfect in this circumstances but you can only do so much with big commerce.
You can either hard code to fix this issue or just use robots.txt to disallow sorts!
Hope this helps.
-
Thanks for your help.
-
Carl from what I can see there is no suport for canonical in bigcommerce at this stage - perhaps in updated releases. There is afair amount of discussion around this issue however the issue remains unresolved. I would try writing to them and request the feature to be included in the upcoming update.
-
Perhaps this link will help:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
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
-
Browser Size = Not Set Filter in Google Analytics
I have been trying to filter this traffic out of my Google Analytics data since it all seems to be related to spam traffic. I have had multiple instances wherein using this filter:
Technical SEO | | fuelmedical
(Backslash not displaying in message preview - I have written backlash to indicate its placement in the filter) Custom Filter - Exclude - Browser Size - ^backlash(not setbackslash)$ Traffic seems to appropriately filter out - but then the filter ceases working. In looking at a new site with Browser Size = (not set) traffic the filter preview doesn't appear to work either. Am I implementing the filter incorrectly? How do I filter this traffic out of GA data sucessfully? If I use the exact same method using RegEx in Google Data Studio - the filter works perfectly.1 -
Change URL or use Canonicals and Redirects?
We just completed a conclusive a/b test on a client's landing page. The new page saw a 30% bump in conversions, yay! Now what? Option 1: Change the url of the new page to that of the old page, retire the old page. Option 2: Redirect the old page and anything that was pointing to it to the new page, make the new page the canonical. I'm afraid of option 1 because I think Google's WTF penalty will be a bit harsher than option 2, but I wanted to sanity check that here. Any thoughts or experienced advice would be very appreciated!
Technical SEO | | LindsayDayton0 -
Rel Canonical for the Same Page
Hi, I was looking in my one of my moz accounts and under analyz page under notices is a message that says: Rel Canonical Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. I checked an notice that I do have a rel='canonical' href='http://www.example.com' /> from the home page of http://www.example.com. I guess my question is. Does having a Rel Canonical going to the same page hurt my SEO? I'm not sure why it is there but wanted to make sure I address this correctly. I was under the impression you use Rel Canonical for duplicate or similar pages and you want to let Google know what page to show. But since I've made this mistake to where I am saying to show the home page if you find a similar home page, should I just delete the Rel Canonical. Thanks,
Technical SEO | | ErrickG
Errick0 -
Big Mess - Multiple Websites
I have a customer, a Psychologist, who put up +/-20 websites many years ago. He has 1 main site (with his name as the domain) with hundreds of pages of quality content. The other sites are all exact match domains - anxiety counseling, couples counseling, etc. Some are single page sites, others have a good amount of quality content. Many of the EMD sites were getting ranked on the first page, as was the main site. The money site was ranking on the first page for the best keywords All of the EMD pages linked back to the main site, many with site wide footer links. The main site did not link back. All of the sites are on the same IP address. These sites have been in place for years. I don't believe that he has a duplicate content problem. About 8 weeks ago, the rankings for the main site crashed, moving 10 or more SERP pages deep. The EMD sites are still ranking. He has not gotten any nasty-grams from Google in Webmaster Tools. The Psychologist relies exclusively on organic for his business, and it has taken a significant hit. 1. Has anyone else seen this happen? 2. Is it safe to assume that Google finally nailed him for using a linking scheme? 3. How can we unwind this? The other sites are still generating business, and if those go away, he is really screwed. 4. Will taking down all of the links from the other sites be enough? Would moving the money site to another hosting company on a different IP make a difference? Ideas? I think the white hat answer would be to take down the EMD sites, and 301 redirect to the main site. The problem is that the loss of business from this process could be catastrophic.
Technical SEO | | CsmBill0 -
Duplication, pagination and the canonical
Hi all, and thank you in advance for your assistance. We have an issue of paginated pages being seen as duplicates by pro.moz crawlers. The paginated pages do have duplicated by content, but are not duplicates of each other. Rather they pull through a summary of the product descriptions from other landing pages on the site. I was planing to use rel=canonical to deal with them, however I am concerned as the paginated pages are not identical to each other, but do feature their own set of duplicate content! We have a similar issue with pages that are not paginated but feature tabs that alter the URL parameters like so: ?st=BlueWidgets ?st=RedSocks ?st=Offers These are being seen as duplicates of the main URL, and again all feature duplicate content pulled from elsewhere in the site, but are not duplicates of each other. Would a canonical tag be suitable here? Many Thanks
Technical SEO | | .egg0 -
Are my canonical re directs working?
Buonjourno from Wetherby UK 🙂 Ive been battlling sometime to get this site http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk to rank for term Right To Manage. Amongst other tactics ive set up a canonical http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/about/right-to-manage.aspx * - Canonical version http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/how-we-care-for-you/right-to-manage.aspx http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/what-our-customers-say/right-to-manage.aspx http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/ - But has this canonical redirect feature worked? The reason i doubt it is i notice when i enter a page http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/what-our-customers-say/right-to-manage.aspx which has the below code in place: rell="canonical" href="http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/About/right-to-manage.aspx/" /> It does not jump to http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/about/right-to-manage.aspx So my question is... "is the canonical redirect working or not & waht is the best way / tool for diagnosing a canonical error" Grazie tanto,
Technical SEO | | Nightwing
David0 -
Canonicals for Real Estate
A real estate site has a landing page for a particular zip code: site.com/zip/99999 On this page, there are links which add arguments to the URL, resulting in structures like this: site.com/zip/99999?maxprice=1000000&maxbeds=3 My question is on using a canonical URL for the pages with arguments. These pages may have lots of duplicate content, so should I direct search engines back to the base URL for the search? (site.com/zip/99999) A side note is that these pages with arguments could have no listings returned (no listings found) or could come back with listings (then it wouldn't be duplicate), but that can change on a day to day basis.
Technical SEO | | SteveCastaneda0 -
Is the full URL necessary for successful Canonical Links?
Hi, my first question and hopefully an easy enough one to answer. Currently in the head element of our pages we have canonical references such as: (Yes, untidy URL...we are working on it!) I am just trying to find out whether this snippet of the full URL is adequete for canonicalization or if the full domain is needed aswell. My reason for asking is that the SEOmoz On-Page Optimization grading tool is 'failing' all our pages on the "Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical" value. I have been unable to find a definitive answer on this, although admittedly most examples do use the full URL. (I am not the site developer so cannot simply change this myself, but rather have to advise him in a weekly meeting). So in short, presumably using the full URL is best practise, but is it essential to its effectiveness when being read by the search engines? Or could there be another reason why the "Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical" value is not being green ticked? Thank you very much, I appreciate any advice you can give.
Technical SEO | | rmkjersey0