Canonical in head best practice
-
Hi
Is putting a list of canonical no follow links in the head the best practice? From SEO Moz analysis urls of duplicate content was flagged but now I have lots of cononicals in the head of my doc and the code looks untidy
see head here : http://carpetflooringsdirect.com/
Is there a cleaner way of doing this? and how do I retest to see if I have fixed?
Many thanks
Matt
-
Add a screenshot of the errors. This will give us more info to be able to help you.
-
So i have told the search engines not to follow.
No you haven't. You have told the search engines that homepage is a canonical version of all these other URLs, which doesn't make sense and is most probably confusing the engines.
I would remove these asap.
Then take a closer look at the error craw diagnostic summary. Perhaps include a screenshot if you're still unsure.
The canonical tag is to tell search engines which version of the page to index if you have variations of the same page which could occur through querystring parameters or something simple like this:
In this scenario you would simple add a this to the <HEAD> section of your index.html page to tell Google to only index http://www.example.com/ since index is exactly the same page.
I would have a read up here as to the correct use of canonical tags - http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/canonicalization
Cheers,
Woody
-
THanks for this I have remover although I still havent solved my Duplicate content problem...
-
You should definitely remove those canonical tags ASAP.
Each page should only have one canonical tag - the correct canonical URL for that page.
Hope that helps!
-
THanks Woody - Yes im just down the road...
The Dashboard (craw diagnostic summary) flagged up the Urls as duplicates. So i have told the search engins not to follow - Is this not what I was suposed to do?
Matt
-
Hi there,
Not quite sure what you're trying to achieve here, but this is certainly not how the canonical tag is used.
I would remove these asap from the homepage before something negative happens to your rankings.
What are you trying to achieve? What was the duplicate content issue?
Woody
Oh, BTW - if your profile name is where you're located, I'm just down the A12 from you in Colchester.
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
-
Canonical Expert question!
Hello, I am looking for some help here with an estate agent property web site. I recently finished the MoZ crawling report and noticed that MoZ sees some pages as duplicate, mainly from pages which list properties as page 1,2,3 etc. Here is an example: http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=2
Technical SEO | | artdivision
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=3 etc etc Now I know that the best practise says I should set a canonical url to this page:
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=all but here is where my problem is. http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 contains good written content (around 750 words) before the listed properties are displayed while the "page=all" page do not have that content, only the properties listed. Also http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 is similar with the originally designed landing page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses I would like yoru advise as to what is the best way to can url this and sort the problem. My original thoughts were to can=url to this page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses instead of the "page=all" version but your opinion will be highly appreciated.0 -
Canonical tag refers to itself (???)
Greetings Mozzers. I have seen a couple of pages that use canonical tags in a peculiar way, and I wanted to know if this way of using the tags was correct, harmless or dangerous: What I've seen is that on some pages like: www.example.com/page1 There's a canonical tag in the header that looks like this link href="http://ww.example.com/page1" rel="canonical" It looks as though the tag is "redirecting to itself", this seems useless (at least to me). Is there a case where this is actually a recommended practice? Will using the canonical tag in this way "hurt" the page's ranking potential? Cheers Jorge
Technical SEO | | Masoko-T0 -
Rel Canonical ? please help again!
Hi, I have been looking at the on page section and the grading. And I have noticed on nearly all of my pages an error. No More Than One Canonical URL Tag Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>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.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove all but a single canonical URL tag</dd> </dl> <a class="more expanded">Minimize</a> Please how do I make sure these canonicals are working properly, My rankings are getting worst fro long tail and short tail keywords. I am not even ranking for the main keywords "Probate" at all now! Our site is probate, we sell probate, we talk aout probate and now we are out of the top 200??? http://www.finalduties.co.uk Kind Regards Elissa HAyes
Technical SEO | | Chris__Chris0 -
Rel = Canonical in Blog Posting
Hello, I keep coming back to rel=canonical issues! I noticed when I "view pagesource" that my drupal blog posting automatically creates link rel="canonical" href="/sample-blog-title" /< pattern (with the > reversed) in the source code. I'm getting a lot of Rel=Canonical warnings and double content warnings from Seomoz so I've been trying to insert link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/blog/my-awesome-blog-post"< but the page won't retain the code for some reason. I'm entering the code in Plain Text, but saving the document as Full HTML. Is there a better piece of code I can put in to demonstrate that the original blog page is the original source? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | OTSEO0 -
Give your top 3 of best optimized websites
Hey gents & ladies, Give your top 3 of websites that in your eyes are optimized in a good way? Tell me why you think the website is that good and notice the keywords.
Technical SEO | | PlusPort0 -
Canonical Tag Here?
Hello, I have a client who I have taken on (different to my other client in another question), My client has a ecommerce website and in nearly all of his products (around 30-40) he has a little information checklist like.. Made in the UK
Technical SEO | | Prestige-SEO
Prices from 9.99
Top quality
Free delivery on orders over.. This is the duplicate content, what is the best practise for this as the SEOmoz crawler is giving me a multiple of errors.0 -
Optimal / Best Practice Title tag
Hi Guys, Am I write in saying google will take / create many variable from your title tag? Graphic, Web Design and Online Marketing in Ireland | Company Name results: Graphic Design, Web design, Web design in Ireland, Online Marketing in Ireland, Online Marketing, Graphic and Web Design, etc etc. (plus lots of long tail there as well). Would this be considered the optimal way as 'Design' is the common denominator for Graphic & Web. Then Ireland can be common to every other keyword such as Graphic design, Web design, Online Marketing. (in ireland) The reason why I ask is: lately I've notice title tags being stuffed with keywords and don't actually read correctly in the SERP My suggested way could have more benefits plus it reads well. Your thoughts, thanks.
Technical SEO | | Socialdude0 -
Canonical tags and internal Google search
Quick question: I want some pages that will have canonical tags, to show up in internal results for a Google site search that's built into the site. I'm not finished with the site, but is it correct to assume that pages with canonical will NOT show up in internal site search results, when powered by Google?
Technical SEO | | EricPacifico0