Canonical Meta Tag Best Practices
-
I've noticed that some website owners use canonical tags even when there may be no duplicate issues.For examplewww.examplesite.com has a canonical tag.......rel="canonical" href="http://www.examplesite.com/" />www.examplesite.com/bluewidget has a canonical tag.......rel="canonical" href="http://www.examplesite.com/bluewidget/" />Is this recommended or helpful to do this?
-
I prefer to think of it as "index control", since PR sculpting has a history of being abused, but you've covered the big ones. Obviously, good site architecture is the first step. If they tag exists in 2012, I pretty much covered it in this article:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/duplicate-content-in-a-post-panda-world
-
Sorry about not clarifying that
Tools or tags used to channel spidering and indexing and circulate page rank (e.g. robots.txt file, pagination with rel="next" and rel="prev", x-robots-tag, etc.....)
I just read an article on pagerank sculpting in visibility magazine that inspired my question
-
Sorry about not clarifying that
Tools or tags used to channel spidering and indexing and circulate page rank (e.g. robots.txt file, pagination with rel="next" and rel="prev", x-robots-tag, etc.....)
I just read an article on pagerank sculpting in visibility magazine that inspired my question
-
Sorry, not sure what you mean. Site-wide tags, or tags that perform canonicalization?
-
Thanks for the post Peter!
In addition to the canonical tag are there any others that you guys have heard of people having success with?
-
I'd generally agree with (and thumbed up) Adam - it's harmless and can sometimes help sweep up any stray URLs. I find it especially useful for the home-page, which naturally has a lot of variants.
I'd only add that you often see this in place not so much because it's strategic but because it's easier to implement, especially in a CMS. Telling the system to add a canonical to every version but the canonical URL is a lot more of a pain, so most people don't do it. Originally, Google and Bing suggested this was their preferred method, but it was so immediately obvious that it's easier to put the tag on all versions that I think they completely reversed that.
I've never seen it cause any harm, and I've seen it help a bit more than once.
-
You're welcome.
It's important to note that the use of canonicals or redirects is not intended for directing page rank. They are primarily used to direct users to the most appropriate page and to avoid any duplicate content issues with search engines.
-
Thanks Adam for posting a response. Very helpful. I read an article about pagerank sculpting and it got me thinking about the best use of canonical, robots.txt files, etc...
My site currently does not have any canonical tags or any of the others used to channel page rank. I have been told that the proper use of certain tags can possible help with rankings by directing page rank to the more important pages.
-
I'll add this to what Crimson said,
It doesn't hurt to have canonical tags on all pages.
-
Hi Nathan,
Personally I think it is good practice to use canonical tags for all pages (even those without duplicates).
Although you may not have duplicates of these pages on your site, other sites may try to scrape the content of your site including its pages. As you have the canonical tag on these pages, any content scraper will also add the canonical tag that points to the page on your site. Therefore it is a good idea to have the canonical tag as a preventative measure also.
Hope that helps,
Adam.
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
-
VTEX Infinite Scroll Design: What is On-Page SEO Best Practice?
We are migrating to the VTEX E Commerce platform and it is built on javascript, so there are no <a>tags to link product pages together when there is a long list of products. According to the Google Search Console Help document, "Google can follow links only if they are an</a> <a>tag with an href attribute." - Google Search Console Help document </a>http://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9112205. So, if there a 1000 products, javascript just executes to deliver more content in order to browse through the entire product list. The problem is there is no actual link for crawlers to follow. Has anyone implemented a solution to this or a similar problem?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggarciabisco0 -
Title tag and user intent
I am just wondering if I create a page that present different e-bike kits and my title tag tag is "the best e-bike kits in 2019", will I rank on "e-bike kits" and "best e-bike kits" or on just "best e-bike kits" ? It seems that user intent can be tricky and sometimes a title tag can make all the difference. How about if I write "Explore Burgundy on a bike tour "to rank on "Burgundy bike tour", will I rank or is the user intent different when I write explore (meaning I am looking for something self guided instead of guided) Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Is it possible that Google would disregard canonical tag?
Hi all, I was wondering if it is possible for Google to diregard the canonical tag, if for example they decide it is wrongly put based on behavioural data. On the Natviscript Blog's individual blog posts there is a canonical tag for the www.nativescript.org/blog/details (printscreen - http://prntscr.com/e8kz5k). In my opinion it should not be there, and I've put request to our Engineering team for removal some time ago. Interestingly, all blog posts are indexed and got decent amount of organic traffic despite the tag. What do you think? Could it be that Google would disregard the tag based on usage data from let's say GA? Thanks, Lily
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lgrozeva0 -
Canonical Tag help
Hello everyone, We have implemented canonical tag on our website: http://www.indialetsplay.com/ For e.g. on http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers?limit=42 we added canonical as http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers?limit=all (as it showcase all products) Our default page is http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers Is canonical tag implementation right? Or we need to add any other URL. Please suggest
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Obbserv0 -
Description vs meta description
I have an e-commerce website and am trying to create product category pages. I am under the impression that Description is the text that would appear under the title on a google search and I believe the meta description is just what google reads? Is having BOTH important or just description? Is it ok to duplicate the description for the meta description? I know its not good to duplicate descriptions on other products and pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nchachula0 -
301 and Canonical - is using both counterproductive
A site lost a great deal of traffic in July, which appears to be from an algorithmic penalty, and hasn't recovered yet. It appears several updates were made to their system just before the drop in organic results. One of the issues noticed was that both uppercase and lowercase urls existed. Example urls are: www.domain.com/product123
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ABK717
www.domain.com/Product123 To clean this up, a 301 redirect was implemented a few months ago. Another issue found was that many product related urls had a parameter added to the url for a tracking purpose. To clean this up, the tracking parameters were removed from the system and a canonical tag was implemented as these pages were also found in Google's index. The tag forced a page such as www.domain.com/product123?ref=topnav to be picked up as www.domain.com/product123. So now, there is a 301 to address the upper and lowercase urls and a canonical tag to address the parameters from creating more unnecessary urls. A few questions here: -Is this redunant and can cause confusion to the serps to have both a canonical and 301 redirect on the same page? -Both the 301 and canonical tag were implemented several months ago, yet Google's index is still showing them. Do these have to be manually removed with GWT individually since they are not in a subfolder or directory? Looking forward to your opinions.0 -
Best practice with duplicate content. Cd
Our website has recently been updated, now it seems that all of our products pages look like this cdnorigin.companyname.com/catagory/product Google is showing these pages within the search. rather then companyname.com/catagory/product Each product page does have a canaonacal tag on that points to the cdnorigin page. Is this best practice? i dont think that cdnorigin.companyname etc looks very goon in the search. is there any reason why my designer would set the canonical tags up this way?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexogilvie0 -
Rel canonical and duplicate subdomains
Hi, I'm working with a site that has multiple sub domains of entirely duplicate content. So, the production level site that visitors see is (for made-up illustrative example): 123abc456.edu Then, there are sub domains which are used by different developers to work on their own changes to the production site, before those changes are pushed to production: Larry.123abc456.edu Moe.123abc456.edu Curly.123abc456.edu Google ends up indexing these duplicate sub domains, which is of course not good. If we add a canonical tag to the head section of the production page (and therefor all of the duplicate sub domains) will that cause some kind of problem... having a canonical tag on a page pointing to itself? Is it okay to have a canonical tag on a page pointing to that same page? To complete the example... In this example, where our production page is 123abc456.edu, our canonical tag on all pages (this page and therefor the duplicate subdomains) would be: Is that going to be okay and fix this without causing some new problem of a canonical tag pointing to the page it's on? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010