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
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
-
What is the correct Canonical tag on m.site?
We have 2 separate sites for desktop (www.example.com) and mobile (m.example.com) As per the guideline, we have added Rel=alternate tag on www.example.com to point to mobile URL(m.example.com) and Rel=canonical tag on m.example.com to point to Desktop site(www.example.com).However, i didn't find any guideline on what canonical tag we should add ifFor Desktop sitewww.example.com/PageA - has a canonical tag to www.example.com/PageBOn this page, we have a Rel=alternate tag m.example.com/pageAWhat will be the canonical we should add for the mobile version of Page Am.example.com/PageA - Canonical tag point to www.example.com/PageA -or www.example.com/PageB?Kalpesh
Technical SEO | | kguard0 -
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 -
Schema.org markup for breadcrumbs: does it finally work?
Hi, TL;DR: Does https://schema.org/BreadcrumbList work? It's been some time since I last implemented schema.org markup for breadcrumbs. Back then the situation was that google explicitly discouraged the use of the schema.org markup for breadcrumbs. In my experience it had been pretty hit or miss - sometimes it worked without issues; sometimes it did not work without obvious reason. Consequently, I ditched it for the data-vocabulary.org markup which did not give me any issues. However, I prefer using schema.org and currently a new site is being designed for a client. Thus, I'd like to use schema.org markup for the breadcrumb - but of course only if it works now. Google has dropped the previous warning/discouragements and by now lists a schema.org code https://developers.google.com/structured-data/breadcrumbs based on the new-ish https://schema.org/BreadcrumbList. Has anybody here used this markup on a site (preferably more than one) and can confirm whether or not it is reliably working and showing the breadcrumb trail / site hierarchy in the SERP? Thanks for your answers! Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
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 -
How to make a .co.uk work in the US
Hi Anyone out there got any tips on the best way to get a .co.uk working well in Google US? We have a Travel site working fantastically well in the UK for some very competitive keywords. It is ranking okay for the same keywords in US but nothing particularly great. Any tips on bespoke activity to drive the ranking for the site in the US without undermining the UK rankings. Thanks Pete
Technical SEO | | SEOwins0 -
How to access google.com.au from India
I got to know that I can access google USA by going to www.google.com/ncr. Is there a similar way to access Google.com.au too from India?
Technical SEO | | KS__0 -
Best practice canonical tags
I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE BESTPRACTICE IS WHEN USING CANONICAL TAGS: or 2:
Technical SEO | | NEWCRAFT0 -
Seomoz api for domains working, for domains+directory not?
We're working on a tool using the seomoz api ... for domains we're always getting the right values, but for longer URLs we're having troubles ... Example: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/6-reasons-why-qa-sites-can-boost-your-seo-in-2011-despite-googles-farmer-update-12160 won't work http://www.seomoz.org/blog works Any idea what we might be doing wrong?
Technical SEO | | gmellak0