301 and rel=canonical AGAINNNN
-
Trying to understand rel=canonical if you have proper 301 redirects (redirects to the canonical URl) for example when migrating from a HTTP to HTTPS environment why would you also opt to add a rel=cannonical tag on the same pages. What effect does this have on SERP rankings or is it ok to have 301 redirects and rel=canonicalon the same page? Anyone?
-
No reason to use both. I would even go as far as to say I wouldn't recommend it.
301 and canonical have different purposes.
301 forwards user to another page. Canonical removes the page from the index but the user is still browsing that page.
I guess you know that.I wouldn't want to give Google even the slightest chance to mix it up and read it wrong.
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
-
Duplicate canonical tag issue
i have this site https://www.dealsmango.com/ which i have selected for canonical , but google is still selecting my old website https://www.selldealsmango.com/ , i have removed everything from old site only one page with new site link, and also put 301 redirect , but still when i click on request for indexing on google search console same error appears regarding duplicate canonical tag . what should i do? remove the canonical tag from old site which i don't want google to index, or what will be the best possible solution.
Moz Pro | | MudassirSultn0 -
How to choose the best canonical URL
In a duplicate content situation, and assuming that both rel=canonical and a 301 redirect pass link equity (I know there is still some speculation on this), how should you choose the "best" version of the URL to establish as the redirect target or authoritative URL? For example, we have a series of duplicate pages on our site. Typically we choose the "cleanest" or shortest non-trailing-slash version of the URL as the canonical, but what if those pages are already established and have varying page authority/backlink profiles? The URLs are: example.com/stores/locate/index?parameters=tags - PA = 54, Inbound Links = 259 example.com/stores/locate/index - PA = 60, Inbound Links = 302 example.com/stores/ - This is the version that currently ranks. PA = 42, Inbound Links = 3 example.com/stores - PA = 40, Inbound Links = 8 This might not really even matter, but in the interests of conserving as much SEO value as possible, which would you choose as either the 301 redirect target and/or the canonical version? My gut is to go with the URL that's already ranking (example.com/stores/) but curious if PA, backlinks, and trailing slashes should be considered also. We of course would not 301 the URL with the tracking parameters. 🙂 Thanks for your help!
Moz Pro | | Critical_Mass0 -
Crawl findings 301 redirects I didn't make?
Hi, I'm new to SEOMOZ Pro and loving it so far, but was confused as to how the 51 page Crawl of my site (http://cryptophoneaustralia.com) found so many 301 redirects. 18 to be exact. It's a Wordpress site, and my htaccess file has no 301's in it, so I'm kind of confused as to where to start looking as to why they've shown up in the crawl. I've been building sites for years, and use 301's quite regularly, but this site should have none. The site was originally on a subdomain until it was ready to go live, then I moved the site to it's current domain and ran the Velvet Blues plugin to update all the URLs. I then went through and manually changed the ones in areas where this plugin tends to miss. The site still functions fine, it just bothers me why the 301's are being found in the crawl. Thank you.
Moz Pro | | TrentDrake0 -
Canonical URLs and Duplicate Page Content
My website (doctor directory) is getting a lot of duplicate page content & duplicate page title warnings from SEOmoz. The pages that are getting the warnings are doctors profiles which can be accessed at three different URLs. Problem is this should be handled by the canonical tag on the pages. So example below, all three open the same page: https://www.arzttermine.de/arzt/dr-sara-danesh/ https://www.arzttermine.de/arzt/dr-sara-danesh/gkv https://www.arzttermine.de/arzt/dr-sara-danesh/pkv Here's our canonical tag (on line 34): rel="canonical" href="http://www.arzttermine.de/arzt/dr-sara-danesh" /> So why is SEO moz crawling the page? We are getting hundreds of errors from this - and yet Google doesn't have any of the duplicate URLs indexed...
Moz Pro | | thomashillard0 -
Did anyone else see "Rel Canonical" drop to zero after their latest SEOmoz crawl?
In the Crawl Diagnostics section of the SEOmoz reports, we get errors in red, warnings in yellow, and notices in blue. After my latest crawl, I saw the "Rel Canonical" part go from about 300 down to 0. Obviously, this isn't right, so I'm wondering if this is a bug that everyone is experiencing. U9W5I
Moz Pro | | UnderRugSwept0 -
Crawl diagnostic Notices for rel Canonical increased
Hello, We just signed up for SEO Moz, and are reviewing the results of our second web crawl. Our Errors and Warnings summary have been reduced, but our Notices for Rel Canonical have skyrocketed from 300 to over 5,500. We are using a WP with the Headway theme and our pages already have the rel=canonical along wiht rel=author. Any ideas why this number would go up so much in one week? Thank you, Michael
Moz Pro | | MKaloud0 -
Is Open Site Explorer ignoring 301 redirects now?
I just recently saw a huge decline in the page rank of a specific page on my site. When I investigated a bit further I noticed that the drop in page rank looks like it is due to the fact that most of the links to the page come through 301 re-directs from an old page. I know you just made a change to Open Site Explorer. Did you change the way that you are treating 301 re-directs? Here is the new page: http://www.justjen.com/shop/big-sister-tshirts.htm Here is the old page: http://www.justjen.com/shop/bigsister-tshirts.htm Up until the last couple of days, the new page was showing the links from the old page in your cache, but as of today, the new page is only showing the links that go to it, not the links to the old page that is re-directed to it. If there was a change recently, was this intentional (trying to replicate the search engines better) or is it an oversight or database anomaly?
Moz Pro | | gametv0 -
Can overly dynamic URLs be overcome with canonical meta tags?
I tried searching for questions regarding dynamic URLs and canonical tags, but I couldn't find anything s hopefully this hasn't been covered. There are a large number of overly dynamic URLs reported in our site crawl (>7,000). I haven't looked at each of these, but most of these either have a canonical meta tag or have are indicated as FOLLOW, NO INDEX pages. Will these be enough to overcome any negative SEO impact that may come from overly dynamic URLs? We are down to almost 0 critical errors and this is now the biggest problem reported by the site crawl after too many on page links.
Moz Pro | | afmaury0