How long to reverse the benefits/problems of a rel=canonical
-
If this wasn't so serious an issue it would be funny....
Long store cut short, a client had a penalty on their website so they decided to stop using the .com and use the .co.uk instead. They got the .com removed from Google using webmaster tools (it had to be as it was ranking for a trade mark they didn't own and there are legal arguments about it)
They launched a brand new website and placed it on both domains with all seo being done on the .co.uk. The web developer was then meant to put the rel=canonical on the .com pointing to the .co.uk (maybe not needed at all thinking about it, if they had deindexed the site anyway). However he managed to rel=canonical from the good .co.,uk to the ,com domain!
Maybe I should have noticed it earlier but you shouldn't have to double check others' work! I noticed it today after a good 6 weeks or so. We are having a nightmare to rank the .co.uk for terms which should be pretty easy to rank for given it's a decent domain.
Would people say that the rel=canonical back to the .com has harmed the co.uk and is harming with while the tag remains in place? I'm off the opinion that it's basically telling google that the co.uk domain is a copy of the .com so go rank that instead.
If so, how quickly after removing this tag would people expect any issues caused by it's placement to vanish?
Thanks for any views on this. I've now the fun job of double checking all the coding done by that web developer on other sites!
-
Yeah, if the .com is blocked now, there's really no point in putting 301s or canonicals over there, because they won't do anything (theoretically, at least). You could put self-referencing canonicals on the .co.uk site. It would at least be a nudge to Google to ignore the old canonicals (to the .com). Other than that, you may have to wait and see.
As Alan said, you could 301-redirect the .com and then stop blocking it. Properly redirected, no visitors should be able to view the old pages. In some ways, that's even more reliable than blocking.
Update: Sorry, realized that was a bit confusing, as I sort of told you that a 301 was pointless but then to 301 What I'm saying is that you could stop blocking the .com and THEN 301-redirect it. If it really is fully blocked, 301-ing it probably won't have any impact (although it won't hurt anything).
-
If the .com is de indexed, then i would either get rid of it, or 301 it to the .uk
-
Dr Pete,
The whole thing has been one issue after another with the client. One of those helpful clients whom change their website and page structure without telling you. First you hear about it is when they call you wanting to know why their rankings have dropped!
The idea was to move away from the .com site and use the .co.uk site, however they had a lot of people visiting the .com and wanted to keep that as a live site. What should have been done (what I advised them on) was to canonical from the .com to the uk site, telling google that the uk domain is now the main domain. Helpful and rather impressively their web developer managed to put the canonical tag on the .co.uk domain telling google the .com was the main domain.
Then, the .com got involved in a trademark dispute so they decided to remove it from the google listings via webmaster tools (it is still removed as it still ranks for the trademark keyword when it's unblocked). The long and short of it was they ended up in a position which the site they wanted to be ranking was being ignored by google in favour of the site they blocked from google!
I guess now it's a question of just waiting for google to recrawl the .co.uk and see the tag has gone. It's a basic seo error on my part but I would have trusted an experienced web designer to copy and paste a code I gave him on to the correct site.
Don't you just love the clients which won't give you ftp access and insist all changes go through their web developer who is freelance!!
Thanks for the help on this everyone
Carl
-
I'm thinking the same thing - if possible, the 301 might help override the canonical. Sometimes, in my experience, if you reverse a signal (like rel-canonical) with that same signal, Google takes it's time to re-evaluate, because the reversal just looks odd. The 301 here might be more insistent.
The link profile and other signals should help, but I've seen reversing a bad canonical take weeks. It's a tough signal to undo.
Is the .com site still blocked, though? If you canonical'ed to a blocked site and now are trying to reverse it, but the site is still blocked, Google won't crawl the new signal (the same would be true for 301s). If the .com is blocked somehow and you remove the bad canonical, Google may act more quickly (since canonicalizing to a blocked site would seem strange).
-
I would not do anything, it will sort out soon enouth. I dont think it will happen first crawl, as i remeber google saying that they dont honer redirects first time as you may be making changes when crawled, so it may a take a few crawls, also it is not clear if you get all link juice back when it is crawled or when the pages that link to you are crawled. to explain further, if i had a link pointing to you, would the link juice point back to your .uk when your page gets crawled, or when i get crawled?
My guess you will start seeing value return over a period, from day one (as most sites get a few pages a day crawled) up untill a couple of months.
-
Would a 301 from .com to .co.uk work better?
-
the dreaded call to the client, I dont envy you, but be open and honest and all will work out for the best.
Aas SEOs were supposed to notice the finer details, but were only human.
In the past I've put these 'issues' down to 'communication problems with the clients outsourced develeopers', perhaps they should cosider moving development to you guys
-
Thanks for the reply.
Hopefully the large number of backlinks to it will mean it gets recrawled very quickly. I had spent weeks trying to work out why I could get the .co.uk homepage indexed in google now I know why. Now comes a nice call to the client, eek! Thankfully the web design works freelance and is employed by the client not me
-
Hi MisterG,
I feel your pain and learnt the same lesson a few years back. Now i double check everything our devs do.
I agree with you that the canonical is tell Google to go rank the .com as its the authorative owner of the co.uk's content.
How log its going to take to remedy after sortig out the canonical is anyones guess. I suppose it depends on how often you get crawled (deeply).
Be patient and cross your fingers! (oh and dont be too harsh on the devs, they are simple logical creatures!)
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
-
Problems with Meta Title on Bing
On the Bing search engine, it isn't showing the actual meta title we have for a website. It's showing something different. However, the correct meta title is showing on the Google search engine. Has anyone had the same issue? Has anyone been able to fix this issue? Thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | Harrison.Stickboy0 -
Rel no follow question
Hello, I probably already know the answer to this question. But, When you use a rel no follow tag on an internal link or external link. Will the google bot still navigate to the link, in question? Thanks for your help.
Technical SEO | | PeterRota0 -
Why Canonical error?
I just got my SEOMOZ run and it says I have a CANONICAL ERROR: Scorpio Earrings - 7mm Stud - Sterling Silver http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm I'm not sure why--I only changed the <title>tag--not the URL.</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">Why would this generate a canonical error?</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">Kathleen</span></p> <p><span class="truncated sub-url" title="http://www.astrojewelry.com/jewelry/scorpio-the-scorpion-earrings-30502.htm">astrojewelry.com</span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p></title>
Technical SEO | | spkcp1110 -
Blog.furnacefilterscanada.com/ or furnacefilterscanada.com/blog/
My shopping cart does not allow to instal a WordPress blog on a sub-domain like: furnacefilterscanada.com/blog/ But I can host my blog on another server with a sub-domain like: blog.furnacefilterscanada.com In a SEO point of view is there a difference between the 2? Link juice? Page authority? Thank you, BigBlaze
Technical SEO | | BigBlaze2050 -
Canonical tags
How hard is it to put in Canonical tags on a webpage? My web guy didn't do it because he put in redirects in place for all old URLs and all content
Technical SEO | | Boodreaux
(except error pages and advanced searches) should have a unique URL. By not having canonical tags does it lose link juice? Not sure if that question makes sense. 🙂 Poo1 -
Sharepoint CMS and rel= cannonical
I have a client that uses Sharepoint as their CMS and they are having a tough time getting cannonical tags to work on the website without breaking other items. Has anyone had a similar experience? Do you have any resources that could help? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | HughesDigital0 -
Querystring params, rel canonical and SEO
I know ideally you should have as clean as possible url structures for optimal SEO. Our current site contains clean urls with very minimal use of query string params. There is a strong push, for business purposes to include click tracking on our site which will append a query string param to a large percentage of our internal links. Currently: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/ Will change to: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/?tg=zzzzwww We currently use rel canonical on all pages to properly define the true url in order to remove any possible duplicate content issues. Given we are already using rel canonical, if we implement the query string click tracking, will this negatively impact our SEO? If so, by how much? Could we run into duplicate content issues? We get crawled by Google a lot (very big site) and very large percent of our traffic is from Google, but there is a strong business need for this information so trying to weigh pros/cons.
Technical SEO | | NicB10 -
Rel-canonical tag
Hi, I'm having some confusion with the rel-canonical tag. A few months ago we implemented the rel-canonical tag because we had many errors specifically duplicate page content come upon the SEOmoz web app (mostly because we use tracking code). I had asked what to do about this and was advised by the SEOmoz web app to implement the rel-canonical tag. However, when I'm working on the Keyword Optimizer Tool, it always checks off that I'm using the rel-canonical tag improperly, and then when I go into our sites' CMS for that page and uncheck "Use Canonical URL", the keyword optimizer tool up's my grade for that correction/that I've made an improvement. So my question is if the page I'm working on is the one I want search engines to find, should I not be using the Canonical URL tag? Should the Canonical URL tag only be used on URL's with the tracking code?
Technical SEO | | aircyclemegan0