Confused about rel="canonical"
-
I'm receiving a duplicate content error in my reports for www.example.com and www.example.com/index.htm. Should I put the rel="canonical" on the index page and point it to www.example.com? And if I have other important pages where rel="canonical" is being suggested do I place the rel="canonical" on that page? For example if www.example/product is an important page would I place on that page?
-
I haven't considered this option, thanks for the tip.
-
I've read that a 301 redirect hurts your page rank. Is that true? Thanks for pointing me to that page. I've seen and read that page a long time ago and at the time it was like a foreign language. Now it makes more sense.
-
I dunno that Google gives you a good example of why you would use it, just where. Canonical, for all intents ard purposes, lets you pick which of your duplicates gets indexed.
Here's a real world example. Newegg.com has, literally, tens of thousands of products. Their site is in site.com/?id=STRING but they do a lot of URL based tracking. As such, you have a lot of site.com/?id=STRING&ref=1234 Now, Google will see all of those extra query string pages as unique pages with duplicate content. Newegg uses canonical to ensure that Google ignores all but the core product page.
So, why use a 301 and why use canonical? A 301 removes the page from the index. Canonical leaves the page indexed but transfers PR to the "real" page and helps avoid duplicate content.
-
To expand on what Petra said, have you considered using your .htaccess file to permanently redirect all version of your home page to www.example.com (and other pages as well)? This can be done in conjunction with rel="canonical".
SEOmoz offers a Redirection Best Practices doc that can help you out.
-
To your first question:
www.example.com/index.html --> use a 301 redirect to www.example.comRegarding rel canonical --> there the usage is explained pretty well:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.htmlYou add the tag to specify your preferred version inside the section of the duplicate content URLs.
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
-
Rel Canonicals not working properly.
We recently implemented rel=canonicals on a few of our pages to prevent query parameters from showing up in the SERPs. The two pages we added the tags to are no longer ranking. The pages used to rank very well for branded terms such as "morningstar direct" and "morningstar sustainability", but now don't show up at all. When you search for the urls specifically, for example "products/direct morningstar" the query parameter is still indexing. Does anyone know why this might be or what we can do to fix this issue? The two pages are www.morningstar.com/products/direct and https://www.morningstar.com/company/sustainability
Technical SEO | | jmigdal0 -
Where does rel=canonical go? One file that manages sort order, view, filters, etc...
Where do I put the rel=canonical when the search.cfm (using URL re-write) page is the one and only page, just using url parameters to control sort, filter, view, etc. Do I just put the rel=canonical at the top of the search.cfm page? The duplicate content issues I am getting are: https://www.domain.com/tx/austin/ https://www.domain.com/tx/austin/?d=25&h=&s=r&t=&v=l&a= Just want to be clear since Moz Pro is picking up both URL's but it's only really one file, search.cfm Thanks in advance for your help.
Technical SEO | | ErnieB0 -
Staging site and "live" site have both been indexed by Google
While creating a site we forgot to password protect the staging site while it was being built. Now that the site has been moved to the new domain, it has come to my attention that both the staging site (site.staging.com) and the "live" site (site.com) are both being indexed. What is the best way to solve this problem? I was thinking about adding a 301 redirect from the staging site to the live site via HTACCESS. Any recommendations?
Technical SEO | | melen0 -
What to do with "show all" page
Hello, What should I do with the following situation: In e-commerce shop I have an option to "show all products" (list all products in one page) - do I need to put canonnical or 301 redirect to somewhere or should I leave as normal page - I think google consider this is as duplicate since everything is the same (only number of products is different) ? Regards, Nenad
Technical SEO | | Uniline0 -
Rel="canonical" of .html/ to .html
Hi, could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless? I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls. http://www.example.com/petra.html/
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
to
http://www.example.com/petra.html I mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ??? Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical. What is your position here?0 -
Moz Crawl Reporting Duplicate content on "template" styled pages
We have a lot of detail pages on our site that reference specific scholarships. Each page has a different Title and Description. They also have unique information all regarding the same data points. The pages are displayed in a similar structure to the user so the data is easy to read. My problem is a lot of these pages are being reported as duplicate content when they certainly are not. Most of them are reported as duplicates when they have the same sponsor. They may have the same contact information listed. These two are being reported as duplicate of each other. They share some data but they are definitely different scholarships. http://www.collegexpress.com/scholarships/adelaide-mcclelland-garden-club-scholarship/9254/ http://www.collegexpress.com/scholarships/mary-wannamaker-witt-and-lee-hampton-witt-memorial-scholarship/10785/ Would it help to add a Canonical for each page to themselves? Any other suggestions would be great. Thanks
Technical SEO | | GeorgeLaRochelle0 -
Hyphenated Domain Names - "Spammy" or Not?
Some say hyphenated domain names are "spammy". I have also noticed that Moz's On Page Keyword Tool does NOT recognize keywords in a non-hyphenated domain name. So one would assume neither do the bots. I noticed obviously misleading words like car in carnival or spa in space or spatula, etc embedded in domain names and pondered the effect. I took it a step further with non-hyphenated domain names. I experimented by selecting totally random three or four letter blocks - Example: randomfactgenerator.net - rand omf act gene rator Each one of those clips returns copious results AND the On-Page Report Card does not credit the domain name as containing "random facts" as keywords**,** whereas www.business-sales-sarasota.com does get credit for "business sales sarasota" in the URL. This seems an obvious situation - unhyphenated domains can scramble the keywords and confuse the bots, as they search all possible combinations. YES - I know the content should carry it but - I do not believe domain names are irrelevant, as many say. I don't believe that hyphenated domain names are not more efficient than non hyphenated ones - as long as you don't overdo it. I have also seen where a weak site in an easy market will quickly top the list because the hyphenated domain name matches the search term - I have done it (in my pre Seo Moz days) with ft-myers-auto-air.com. I built the site in a couple of days and in a couple weeks it was on page one. Any thoughts on this?
Technical SEO | | dcmike0 -
Can Search Engines Read "incorrect" urls?
I know that ideally a url should be something of the nature domain.com/topic, but if the url contains additional characters, for example, domain.com/topic?keyword, can the search engines still understand the complete words in the domain? Even though there are additional "incorrect" characters? Or do they stop "reading" once they find odd characters? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0