301 Redirect & Canonical Tags
-
If I have URL A and need to 301 Redirect to URL B but want to have a canonical tag on URL B pointing to URL A Would this be considered cloaking? My server which runs .net 3.5 does not allow me to do URL re-writes.
-
Hello IMM,
When you are doing redirection of URL A to URL B so canonical tag is not very useful. Canonical tag we used so many duplicate pages is created dynamically & you can't all pages to redirect onto one main page.
You know that which page should be redirected then no use of canonical tag of URL A on URL B.
Just put URL B in canonical tag for MAIN PAGE.
-
Paul is right. Canonical is a hint, not a directive. Google will ignore hints when they don't make sense (i.e. a canonical to a 404).Cloaking is when you feed up one site to googlebot and another to real visitors. It can get you banned from Google's index. Canonicals cannot cloak anything.
-
In this instance, your canonical tag would make no sense, and so search engines would likely just ignore it.
If A were the canonical version, there would be no reason to be redirecting it to B.
I must be missing something here. What exactly is the end goal you're trying to accomplish, IMM?
Paul
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
-
Special Characters in URL & Google Search Engine (Index & Crawl)
G'd everyone, I need help with understanding how special characters impact SEO. Eg. é , ë ô in words Does anyone have good insights or reference material regarding the treatment of Special Characters by Google Search Engine? how Page Title / Meta Desc with Special Chars are being index & Crawl Best Practices when it comes to URLs - uses of Unicode, HTML entity references - when are where? any disadvantage using special characters Does special characters in URL have any impact on SEO performance & User search, experience. Thanks heaps, Amy
Moz Pro | | LabeliumUSA0 -
Q&A Performance Improvements
Howdy! We've made some performance improvements to Q&A, and things should be much speedier now. If you see anything amiss, please leave a reply here or send a note to [email protected]. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | KeriMorgret1 -
I did a redirect and now I'm getting duplication errors.
I was told by SEO Moz to do a redirect so that our website would be crawled with and without the www in front of the address. I did and now I'm getting duplicate page and title errors because the crawler is seeing www.oursitename.com and its underpages and oursitename.com and its underpages and giving me duplicate page content errors and duplicate page title errors. Makes sense, but how do I make it stop? Anyone else have this problem?
Moz Pro | | THMCC0 -
Why does Rel Canonical show up as a notice?
In the crawl diagnostics screen "Rel Canonical" shows up as a notice for every page that has a rel="canonical" meta tag in it. Why is this the case? Shouldn't every page have a canonical tag on it to show the absolute URL to the content? Wouldn't a better notice be to display pages that do not have a canonical tag instead? I could be wrong but that would make more sense to me. (In fact.. let's be honest here.. I probably am wrong.. but I'd like someone to explain it if they could.) Thanks
Moz Pro | | rrolfe1 -
'Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical', Critical Factor but appears correct on page
Hi, Trying to get the following page ranked unsuccessfully.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/2/Collections-Quilted-Jackets/c01c02.r16.1 Instead a product page is being ranked, shown below.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/Womens-Quilted-Jacket/Navy/M_HAMPTON/ProductDetail.raction When I run the on page report card it advises that the Rel Canonical tag needs to point to that page, but we have checked and it looks to be doing that already. Has anyone else had an issue like this? Thanks, Martin
Moz Pro | | rockethot0 -
Notice rel canonical
Hi, Why does my sites get the crawler notice for rel canonical when using the PRO account crawlers?? The canonical is there and it works, and to me it looks just like any other canonical link, the canonical is only at some links but not everyone, why is that?
Moz Pro | | careeron0 -
Crawl Diagnostics finding pages that dont exist. Will Rel Canon Help?
I have recently set up a campaign for www.completeoffice.co.uk. Im the in-house developer there. When the crawl diagnostics completed, i went to check the results, and to my surprise, it had well over 100 missing or empty title tags. I then clicked it to see what pages, and nearly all the pages it say have missing or empty title tags, DO NOT EXIST. This has really confused me and need help figuring out how to solve this. Can anyone help? Attached image is a screen shot of some of the links it showed me on crawl diagnostics, nearly all of these do not exist. Will the relation Canonical tag in the head section of the actual pages help? For example, The actual page that exist is: www.completeoffice.co.uk/Products.php Whereas, when crawled it actually showed www.completeoffice.co.uk/Products/Products.php Will have the rel can tag in the header of the real products.php solve this?
Moz Pro | | CompleteOffice0 -
Redirecting duplicate .asp pages??
Hi all, I have a bit of a problem with duplicate content on our website. The CMS has been creating identical duplicate pages depending on which menu route a user takes to get to a product (i.e. via the side menu button or the top menu bar). Anyway, the web design company we use are sorting it out going forward, and creating 301 redirects on the duplicate pages. My question is, some of the duplicates take two different forms. E.g. for the home page: www.<my domain="">.co.uk
Moz Pro | | gdavies09031977
www..<my domain="">.co.uk/index.html
www.<my domain="">.co.uk/index.asp</my></my></my> Now I understand the 'index.html' page should be redirected, but does the 'index.asp' need to be directed also? What makes this more confusing is when I run the SEOMoz diagnostics report (which brought my attention to the duplicate content issue in the first place - thanks SEOMoz), not all the .asp pages are identified as duplicates. For example, the above 'index.asp' page is identified as a duplicate, but 'contact-us.asp' is not highlighted as a duplicate to 'contact-us.html'? I'm a bit new to all this (I'm not a IT specialist), so any clarification anyone can give would be appreciated. Thanks, Gareth0