Canonical Tags?
-
I read that Google will "honor" these tags if your website has two url's with duplicate content. The duplicate content does not show up in my SEOmoz crawls report but they do in the search engines and many of "non authoritative links" that are generated from my search feature j(ugly url's with % ...not real user friendly) are ranking higher than the "good URL" links.
So if I do the canonical tags I guess my higher ranking bad urls will drop. I even read that google might even completely overlook the links. I read somewhere that the best way to do this is with a 301 redirect...is that correct? I m ranking pretty good with my main keyword terms so I am afraid to make changes not knowing the effect. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Boo
-
We strongly suspect that canonical tags lose a portion of link "juice" just like 301s do. Otherwise, they could be abused.
-
I can't debate one thing - we certainly don't have all the information, and that can lead to bad advice at times.
I disagree on a couple of points:
(1) User-friendly URLs can have both usability and SEO advantages, whether or not they're meant to be typed in directly. Typically, those advantages are minor, but descriptive URLs can certainly boost SEO a small degree.
(2) If your URLs have spaces in them, they are probably being converted in some cases to "%20" (that's the URL-encoded equivalent of a space). It's generally a bad idea to have internal URLs with spaces, and this can lead to minor problems. This explanation sounds a little dubious to me. I'd highly recommend you run an internal crawl with a tool like Xenu or Screaming Frog - you might turn up badly formed internal URLs. I can't prove that, but I'd check if it were me. Hyphens don't "turn into" spaces.
Overall, this reads to me like a list of excuses, not solutions.
-
Jake Madison mentioned this one time.
Any Redirect will lose value. A 301 loses a portion of your juice and a 302 gives you nothing. What the canonical tag does is redirect the authority of the page with the tag to the target page you want to hold the authority (usually the parent page, be it Root Domain, primary landing page or a subcategory page)
Google has a new fantastic tool I think everyone should know about called Google Tag Manager. It creates a container under the that you can fill with any tag, Google or non-Google tags. It is fantastic because you don't need your programer to go in and change anything and no need to access code. It gives the power to you to add and remove tags and define the parameters of each one you put in place. in addition it builds the tag for you if you aren't a code wizard. this makes the world of SEO and OSO shake due to the rainbows and sunshine of not having t bother your programer with little fixes like tag adding and removal.
I hope this helped!
Cheers!
-
Here is what my computer programmer told me...what do you think? (I was mistaken and thought the links were from our advanced search option but they are just links from other sites that are more authoritative than ours I guess. There's a few things here to address, I'm going to try to put it simply. If you want more details I can expound on it:
I think you aren't giving enough information here, and it could potentially cause people to give you bad advice. First off, URLs (generally speaking) aren't meant to be user friendly, unless the user is going to actually type it in. In your case, URLs with %20 in them are never meant to be typed, so it doesn't matter. Second, we don't supply URLs from the site using %20, so we can't do anything about those anyways. One possibility is that websites who are linking to yours have an algorithm that converts hyphens to spaces... and spaces get converted to %20 by many browsers and other internet services.
Second: Don't forget that when we first built the site, we didn't have the vanity URLs (the specialty names)... so the category links with the hyphens-turned-spaces-turned-%20 could very well just be happening because those pages are so much older than the vanity URLs, also, our outbound feeds used to use the old URLs too, so if we provided a feed to a site with those links, and they haven't bothered to update, then those links are still going to be out there. Google sees the links on your site, but they also see the links that come inbound from other sites, and that's why google still has the old URLs listed. The best way to fix this is to use the canonical meta link, to explain to google that the authoritative source is the vanity URL.
-
I tend to agree - these pages are often very low-value for Google and can spin out of control. The canonical tag is a great way to conslidate unavoidable duplicates, but in many cases it's better not to create them at all. Of course, these situations can be very complex, and it's tough to speak in generalities.
-
By search pages, I'm assuming these are automated pages being generated by users searching for things on your site? Pages like these can be seen as 'thin content' and could lead to a penalty from Google.
Also, the question to ask yourself is why are these pages outranking your actual content? Is it because you're linking to them more prominently? Then you'll want to improve your internal linking. Is it because they have a lot of content? Then add more content to your main pages. Is it because they target keywords that your main content doesn't? Then create content around the keywords that people are searching for.
-
Takeshi,
If I no index my higher ranking search links then I will not be ranked as high in google because those will fall completely off right. Are you saying just noindex them...let them fall out of the rankings and then focus long term on getting the main pages ranked above the search pages in order to avoid panda penalties. (I didn't even know I was doing anything wrong)
Boo
-
You want to use a canonical tag on your site if you have any duplicate content. The canonical tag basically tells Google and other search engines which version of the page is the original, or canonical version of the content.
If you're generating a lot of URLs via your search feature, that sounds like it may be a different problem than having a lot of duplicate content. Autogenerating a content via search results is always a risky proposition, which can get you more traffic in the short term, but could get you hit by Panda if it gets out of hand.
My advice would be to noindex the pages generated through search, and create actual high quality content pages for the queries you seem to be getting a lot of traffic for.
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
-
This one is complicated... canonicals, href lang tags and no index
Bear with me, this is complicated (I REALLY hope one of you comes along and says, no it isn't!) Scenario A client has multiple english pages, as they have a unique product offering in AUS, US, UK, NZ and also have a global site in english. Obviously there is a lot of duplicate content and they have the relevant href lang tags set-up to help Google untangle what should be ranked where. They also have rel-canonical on each page. I've set-up search console for each of the folder structures, i.e. en-us, en-gb, en-au and so on. They have an optimised page for one of their primary keywords, which ranks nowhere for this exact keyword, but this page DOES rank for 40 similar keywords. For the exact keyword, they rank 52nd, and frustratingly, it's the homepage that ranks. We know the correct page is ranking and is indexed because search console tells us so and we see the exact page appear in SERPs for the other 40 keywords. When I look at the en-us site in Search Console, it tells me that the home page is not being indexed, because a rel canonical tag is prioritising an alternative page (probably the global site) - however, the en-us homepage is showing up in rankings for a lot of their important keywords. The site has been live for 6 months and the optimised page for about 3 months. Questions 1. If search console is saying the homepage is not ranking, how is it showing up in SERPs?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Algorhythm_jT
2. Why is the homepage ranking for this important keyword, when there is virtually no mention of the keyword versus the page that is almost perfect according to Moz's on-page grader?
3. Do you need href lang tags AND rel canonical on a page?
4. How long before a new page that is optimised for a keyword take to replace (and hopefully surpass) the homepage?
5. If the US is the most important market, should we guide Google to that fact using rel-canonical? Really appreciate your feedback, hivemind. Thanks0 -
Why isn't the canonical tag on my client's Magento site working?
The reason for this mights be obvious to the right observer, but somehow I'm not able to spot the reason why. The situation:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo
I'm doing an SEO-audit for a client. When I'm checking if the rel=canonical tag is in place correctly, it seems like it: view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15) (line nr 15) Anyone seing something wrong with this canonical? When I perform a site:http://quickplay.no/ search, I find that there's many url's indexed that ought to have been picked up by the canonical-tag: (see picture) ..this for example view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15 I really can't see why this page is getting indexed, when the canonical-tag is in place. Anybody who can? Sincerely 🙂 GMdWg0K0 -
Rel=Canonical to Longer Page?
We've got a series of articles on the same topic and we consolidated the content and pasted it altogether on a single page. We linked from each individual article to the consolidated page. We put a noindex on the consolidated page. The problem: Inbound links to individual articles in the series will only count toward the authority of those individual pages, and inbound links to the full article will be worthless. I am considering removing the noindex from the consolidated article and putting rel=canonicals on each individual post pointing to the consolidated article. That should consolidate the PageRank. But I am concerned about pointing****a rel=canonical to an article that is not an exact duplicate (although it does contain the full text of the original--it's just that it contains quite a bit of additional text). An alternative would be not to use rel=canonicals, nor to place a noindex on the consolidated article. But then my concern would be duplicate content and unconsolidated PageRank. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheEspresseo0 -
Canonical url issue
Canonical url issue My site https://ladydecosmetic.com on seomoz crawl showing duplicate page title, duplicate page content errors. I have downloaded the error reports csv and checked. From the report, The below url contains duplicate page content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trixmediainc
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd And other duplicate urls as per report are,
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&click=colorsu&brands=66 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd But on every these url(all 4) I have set canonical url. That is the original url and an existing one(not 404). https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=0 Then how this issues are showing like duplicate page content. Please give me an answer ASAP.0 -
Rel=canonical on image pages
Hi, Im working on a Wordpress hosted blog site. I recently did a "site:search" in Google for a specific article page to make sure it was getting crawled, and it returned three separate URLs in the search results. One was the article page, and the other two were the URLs that hosted the images that are found in the article. Would you suggest adding the rel=canonical tag to the pages that host the images so they point back to the actual context article page? Or are they fine being left alone? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dbfrench0 -
Do I need a canonical tag on the 404 error page?
Per definition, a 404 is displayed for different url (any not existing url ...). As I try to clean my website following SEOmoz pro advices, SEOmoz notify me of duplicate content on urls leading to a 404 🙂 This is I guess not that important, but just curious: should we add a cononical tag to the template returning the 404, with a canonical url such as www.mysite.com/404 ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nuxeo0 -
Always include the targeted keyword in the alt tag?
Studies show that using the targeted keyword in the alt tag helps to rank better for a keyword. But what if the keyword doesn't exactly describe the image, would you still use it in the alt tag? For example, say you have an image of the brain, but the article is about cognitive behavioral therapy -- an accurate description would say 'human brain' but an SEO alt tag may say 'cognitive behavioral therapy'--which would you use?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Hash as a Replacement for Absolute URL in Canonical Tags?
Any idea why companies like Skechers would be doing this: http://screencast.com/t/ooEkATGN7EX ? I suppose it makes sense, but I've never seen it done before. If this works, why on earth would we be using absolute URLs still?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevewiideman0