Rel-canonical tag confusion
-
I had our web development company implement the rel-canonical tag on all pages of our website to get rid of the duplicate content months ago. However, when I use the On Page optimizer tool (in previous version) it would tell me I'm not using the rel-canonical tag correctly on the page I was grading and when I untagged use rel-canonical tag in our CMS (which was pointing to the correct page) my grade would go to an A. Now with the new version it says I'm using it wrong either way, when I have the tag used in my CMS and everything else is good I have a B, but one I click to not use Rel-canonical tag I have a C. Both ways it shows up in On-page tool without a check in Apprpriate Use of Rel Canonical.
I've attached pictures. In C version it says - Canonical URL "/info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
In B version: Canonical URL "/info/solutions/"
What am I doing wrong and how do i fix this? Because ALL of my grades have dropped to Bs and Cs.
Thanks!
iklEHOjJLZE4966 [URL]]([URL=http://imgur.com/5BYcV][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5BYcV.jpg[/IMG][/URL]) 5BYcV
-
The tag should work fine with the partial URL.
If you are still concerned about the warning, try adding the base href tag within the of your page. It would be as follows:
<base href="http://www.aircycle.com/">
This tag explicitly specifies the base URL to which all partial URLs are built upon for a given page. Try adding this tag to just the one page, then running the report again to see if that resolves the issue. If it does, then you know what change the tool is requesting.
To be clear, the canonical tag you are using should be fine for search engines assuming there is no other issue. This may be a specific issue with the tool.
Since testing the base href tag, and the full URL are relatively quick and easy to do, my suggestion is to spend 10 minutes performing these tests to see the results. If the tests work, then you can contact the SEOmoz help desk and report your findings as an issue with the tool. It could be a bug or limitation with the tool.
-
So does the tag still work with the partial URL or no? It worked before, so I'm not sure what the ordeal is now but that the new CMS is causing SEOmoz some difficulty reading this.
I'd have to have my web development company fix it to the full URL.
-
I am going to take my best guess, which would need to be tested.
The tool is seeing a partial URL and it does not like it. The best way to confirm the issue is add the complete URL and then test the page. If it passes, then I am correct.
<link href='http://www.aircycle.com/info/solutions/' rel='canonical' />
-
the missing one just shows the Canonical url listing the rest of the URL twice.
B version: "/info/solutions/"
c version: "/Info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
-
-
The first and third images appear the same to me, and the second image is a broken link.
"/info/solutions/" is not a complete URL. It can't be indexed.
Can you possibly share the URL to an example of a web page with this issue?
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
-
Is The Number of Duplicate Pages reduced after adding canonical ref to the dupe versions ?
Hi Is the number of duplicate pages reported in a dupe page content error report reduced on subsequent crawls, if you have resolved the dupe content problem via adding the canonical tag to duplicate versions (referring the original page). Like it would if you were solving the problem via a 301 redirect (i think/presume) ? Cheers Dan
Moz Pro | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Rel=canonical "redirects" to double links
Our devs have set up rel=canonical on our website. First they used relative links href="/dir1/dir2/dir3" for the page http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/?detail1=1?detail2=2 meaning that it will redirect to http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3, but no luck, the MOZ dashboard showed the tag value to be http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/dir1/dir2/dir3, then we have decided to rewrite the code, and now the canonical to http://wwwmysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/?detail1=1?detail2=2 looks like href="http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3/" but the tag on MOZ looks like http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3http://www.mysite.com/dir1/dir2/dir3. So what is the problem? I really got a problem or MOZ does? The code on website looks exactly like href="http://www.aaa.com/en/bbb/ccc/vvv/nnn/" rel="canonical" /> for the page http://www.aaa.com/en/bbb/ccc/vvv/nnn/
Moz Pro | | apartmentGin0 -
Why does it keep displaying br tags and claiming 404 errors on like 4 of my URL's for all my Wordpress sites?
Is anyone else having the same issue? These errors don't actually exist and i think it has something to do with wordpress - how can i fix this?
Moz Pro | | MillerPR0 -
Rank Tracker Showing Confused me in Position ?
I recently checked one keyword ranking and it was showing my keyword is in 10th position of google.com but the same when i check directly on google.com i seen my keyword position is 16th so i again refresh the ranking and again it is still showing 10th position.. i am totally confused here which one is right.. please help here is the screenshot of that keyword so you can guys check from your side..
Moz Pro | | xplodeguru0 -
Roger keeps telling me my canonical pages are duplicates
I've got a site that's brand spanking new that I'm trying to get the error count down to zero on, and I'm basically there except for this odd problem. Roger got into the site like a naughty puppy a bit too early, before I'd put the canonical tags in, so there were a couple thousand 'duplicate content' errors. I put canonicals in (programmatically, so they appear on every page) and waited a week and sure enough 99% of them went away. However, there's about 50 that are still lingering, and I'm not sure why they're being detected as such. It's an ecommerce site, and the duplicates are being detected on the product page, but why these 50? (there's hundreds of other products that aren't being detected). The URLs that are 'duplicates' look like this according to the crawl report: http://www.site.com/Product-1.aspx http://www.site.com/product-1.aspx And so on. Canonicals are in place, and have been for weeks, and as I said there's hundreds of other pages just like this not having this problem, so I'm finding it odd that these ones won't go away. All I can think of is that Roger is somehow caching stuff from previous crawls? According to the crawl report these duplicates were discovered '1 day ago' but that simply doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of messing up one or two pages on my part either; we made this site to be dynamically generated, and all of the SEO stuff (canonical, etc.) is applied to every single page regardless of what's on it. If anyone can give some insight I'd appreciate it!
Moz Pro | | icecarats0 -
Confused on www vs non-www
Hey Everyone... Really new to the SEO world and have learned tons each day. When I joined SEOmoz I went to my host and set up the 301 direct to have frogfanreport.com go to www.frogfanreport.com. After a couple of days I noticed that Rogerbot only crawled 1 page on www.frogfanreport.com. Looked into the community posts to try to find an answer. So, I went in and took the 301 direct off and setup a new campaign just for frogfanreport.com. It has now crawled over 300 pages. Not sure what I need to do or if I just did not set it up the 301 direct correctly. Looking at the link stats the root domain stats are obviously the same. The subdomain stats is where there is a big difference: www: ext f links 1, total ext links 5, total links 5, f root domain 1, total linking root domain 4 non-www: ext f links 76, total ext links 109, total links 7.962, f root domain 11, total link root domain 19 I am guessing that I should go back in and put the 301 direct from www to non-www? Is this going to affect RogerBot going in? Or did I just not set it up correctly? zach
Moz Pro | | TCUFrogFanReport0 -
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 -
SEOMOZ Canonical notices using Wordpress
I keeping getting the notice from SEO Moz Crawls relating to Canonical issues. I have tried Yoast SEO, All-in-One SEO and both insert the appropriate canonical code... Can anyone help determine why the crawls report this notice? Check out seoontario.ca\testamonials for an example. Could it be because the site in my SEOMOZ crawl does not have the http:// prefix? I've now installed FV Simpler SEO, a variant of All In Once SEO, but am getting the same canonical code...
Moz Pro | | kbryanton0