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!
-
I totally understand, I've been spoiled by working with web designers that are very customer service oriented and who have not held their customers hostage...so this has been very disheartening on several levels.
All three of the clients have been referred to other web designers per my recommendation. One has moved, one is waiting for a little while, and the other has not decided yet.
I have managed to do some canonical meta work using the plug-in and appreciate your sharing the other options available.
-
I hate to say this, but I'm going to, because I have no tolerance for design companies and hosting companies who hold clients hostage (and I've worked at a design/hosting company, so I don't buy 98% of the excuses for that behavior)...
Is there any way to hack the plug-in or META data, based on the access you DO have. For example, the META description sits in the header. What if you entered a description like:
This is my meta description.">
Short of that, there's not a lot you can do with no access. Push comes to shove, you may have to let the client know that, to do your job, they need to divorce the design from the hosting. A WordPress CMS can live anywhere - there's no reason the design company should be sitting on it.
Actually, just for reference, I'll add that there are other solutions, but they're usually very technical and somewhat costly. For example, some SEO companies have proxy hardware/software that sits on top of existing sites. What it basically does is inject code on top of what gets served up by the web server. That way, the SEO company can add tags, etc. without direct access to the server. You still need access to the host, though (or cooperation), and typically this is an enterprise-level solution (in other words, $$$).
-
Thanks for chiming in. Unfortunately, access is a big issue for the web design company and so the only changes I can get in are those I can do using the plug-in and some of the meta fields. Just attempting to prevent dilution and drive the link juice to the main content rather than the transient/time contingent information.
It is a private site design with integration on a Word Press CMS. I actually think the design work is awesome but without the access I am used to for doing my work, it makes it difficult to make adjustments as I need to.
-
Unfortunately, if you really have no access at all, there's isn't much you can do. The best alternative to a canonical tag, in most cases, is a 301-redirect, and you'd need some kind of access for that, too (hosting account, server access, .htaccess rights, etc.).
It depends a lot on the situation, of course. If you're just trying to get some bad URLs out of the index, you could try parameter blocking in Google Webmaster Tools. If you have Robots.txt access, that might open up some other options (although it's limited and only an alternative in a couple of cases).
I assume this is some sort of CMS system or a hosted solution?
What are you trying to achieve/solve with the canonical?
-
Thanks for responding, already asked and they won't budge.
They also are using some of my seo nuances on a competitive site in the same market. Don't trust them any more with those seo details so hoping for other ideas.
-
As far as I know, there is not a way to do this. It's also kind of really strange they won't open up the template to be altered. Could you ask them for access - or just provide them the code to use?
Even if there WAS a way to use rel=canconical in a nonstandard way - I don't think you would want to do that - as it may not be supported across all engines.
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=64f490887853e7a2&hl=en
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
-
"Yet-to-be-translated" Duplicate Content: is rel='canonical' the answer?
Hi All, We have a partially internationalized site, some pages are translated while others have yet to be translated. Right now, when a page has not yet been translated we add an English-language page at the url https://our-website/:language/page-name and add a bar for users to the top of the page that simply says "Sorry, this page has not yet been translated". This is best for our users, but unfortunately it creates duplicate content, as we re-publish our English-language content a second time under a different url. When we have untranslated (i.e. duplicate) content I believe the best thing we can do is add which points to the English page. However here's my concern: someday we _will_translate/localize these pages, and therefore someday these links will _not _have duplicate content. I'm concerned that a long time of having rel='canonical' on these urls, if we suddenly change this, that these "recently translated, no longer pointing to cannonical='english' pages" will not be indexed properly. Is this a valid concern?
Technical SEO | | VectrLabs0 -
Please let me know if I am in a right direction with fixing rel="canonical" issue?
While doing my website crawl, I keep getting the message that I have tons of duplicated pages.
Technical SEO | | kirupa
http://example.com/index.php and http://www.example.com/index.php are considered to be the duplicates. As I figured out this one: http://example.com/index.php is a canonical page, and I should point out this one: http://www.example.com/index.php to it. Could you please let me know if I will do a right thing if I put this piece of code into my index.php file?
? Or I should use this one:0 -
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
Canonical Tag when using Ajax and PhantomJS
Hello, We have a site that is built using an AJAX application. We include the meta fragment tag in order to get a rendered page from PhantomJS. The URL that is rendered to google from PhantomJS then is www.oursite.com/?escaped_fragment= In the SERP google of course doesnt include the hashtag in the URL. So my question, with this setup, do i still need a canonical tag and if i do, would the canonical tag be the escaped fragment URL or the regular URL? Much Appreciated!
Technical SEO | | RevanaDigitalSEO0 -
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 -
Canonical URL
Hi there Our website www.snowbusiness.com has a non www version and this one has 398 backlinks. What is the best way of transfering this link value if i establish the www. address as the canonical URL? Thanks, Ben
Technical SEO | | SnowFX0 -
What is the best way to use canonical tag
Hi, i have been researching this since yesterday and have looked at this subject many times before but still cannot get my head around it. i done a report on my site which was very useful, i used http://www.juxseo.com for my site www.in2town.co.uk and it brought me some useful information but part of that info was it was telling me that i should have on my home page a canonical tag which would improve my seo. Now i am using sh404sef for my friendly urls and i am using joomla 3.0 and when i approached the makers of the sh404sef to ask about the tag they said i would need to be careful of using it as it could damage my site and my rankings. i have read lots of information but still do not have a clear understanding behind it. can anyone please explain the best way to use this and should i be using where i may have some sort of duplicate page, any help to understand this would be great.
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Is it better to guest post with or without using rel=author?
If I guest post on 50 blogs, all using rel=author so they are attributed to my Google Plus account, would the links be de-valued since they are self reference back to my own blog/website? Would it be better to guest post on a blog that doesn't use rel=author?
Technical SEO | | designquotes0