Canonical issues using Screaming Frog and other tools?
-
In the Directives tab within Screaming Frog, can anyone tell me what the difference between "canonicalised", "canonical", and "no canonical" means? They're found in the filter box. I see the data but am not sure how to interpret them. Which one of these would I check to find canonical issues within a website? Are there any other easy ways to identify canonical issues?
-
Hello
I spotted this thread and was just about to reply, but Dirk has answered it all perfectly. Thanks Dirk!
Under 'reports' there's also a 'canonical errors' report which will show canonicals with various technical issues - Those that are blocked by robots.txt, have no response, 3XX redirect, 4XX or 5XX error (essentially anything other than a 200 ‘OK’ response). It will also show any URLs discovered only via a canonical, that are not linked to internally from the sites own link structure (in the ‘unlinked’ column when ‘true’).
Hope that helps anyway.
Cheers!
Dan
-
Hi,
The difference between them
-
canonical : url has a canonical url - which can be self-referencing (canonical url = url) or not
-
canonicalised: url has a canonical url which is not self-referencing (canonical url <> url)
-
no canonical : quite obvious - the url has no canonical.
Potential issues could be - url's that you would like to have a canonical don't have a canonical or url's that are canonicalised don't have the right canonical url. You can use the lists (both canonicalised & no canonical) from Screaming Frog to check them - but it's up to you to judge whether the canonical is ok or not (no automated tool can guess what your intentions are).
Typical mistakes with canonicals: all url's have the same canonical url (like the homepage), or have canonical url's that do not exist. You could also check this with Screaming Frog using the setting "respect canonicals" - this way only the canonical url's will be shown in the listing.Also keep in mind that canonical url's are merely a friendly request to Google to index the canonical rather than the normal url - but it's not an obligation for Google to do this (check https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en quote: "the search results will be more likely to show users that URL structure. (Note: We attempt to respect this, but cannot guarantee this in all cases.)"
Dirk
-
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
-
Redirect Chain Issue
I keep running into a redirect chain issue trying to get a non-https/non-www domain to forward directly to the https/www domain on an Apache server. For background, we are forcing https and forcing www, but it appears the non-https/non-www domain is first redirecting to https/non-www and then redirecting again to the desired final https/www version of the domain. (Hope I am making sense here) I am trying to find code to add to my .htaccess file that will perform the following... 301 Redirect
Technical SEO | | FitzSWC
http://example.com directly to https://www.example.com (without 1st redirecting to https://example.com)
http://www.example.com directly to https://www.example.com Any experts in this with any thoughts? Thanks,
Fitz0 -
Canonical URL on frontpage
I have a site where the CMS system have added a canonical URL on my frontpage, pointing to a subpage on my site. Something like on my domain root.Google is still showing MyDomain.com as the result in the search engines which is good, but can't this approach hurt my ranking? I mean it's basically telling google that my frontpage content is located far down the hierarki, instead of my domain root, which of course have the most authority.
Technical SEO | | EdmondHong87
Something seems to indicate that this could very well be the case, as we lost several placements after moving to this new CMS system a few months ago.0 -
301 issue in IE9
My development team recently discovered an issue with 301 redirects caching in IE9. They did some research and found the situation was very complicated so their solution was to use 302s and no longer use 301s. As a temporary solution to a few URLs I was okay with this, but we have a site redesign launching in a few months and I am quite worried if we have to do all of our redirects as 302s. Has anyone else had this issue with IE9 and 301s. I could use any advice on how to overcome this issue. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | SEI0 -
Drupal issue
Hi seomozzers again, One of my clients uses DRUPAL(cms) and I have an issue when editing any pages. I access the edit section of the page, try to insert meta description tags, save and view the page source and NO meta description tags appear!! Why is that? Is there a specific setting that I need to implement? Under Meta Tags, apparently DRUPAL likes to put canonical tags by default(unless i can tweek one of the settings), and I would like to remove them. The weird thing is that even there are no canonical tags set, when viewing the page source I can still locate a canonical tag. Is there a setting that allow me to remove the canonical by default? Thank you mozzers:)
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Webmaster Tools 404s
We try to keep our 404s in google webmaster tools to a minimum but in recent months, the volume has simply exploded to over 500k errors. 99.95% of this is complete spam linking to pages that never existed. Have tried marking as resolved but they just end up back in the list eventually and don't like the idea of 301ing so many links when the pages never existed in the first place. We can just ignore them all but this makes it hard to identify legitimate 404s that need redirecting as there is only so much data we can export out of WT. Has anyone had experience with returning 410s? Does google eventually drop these from WT?
Technical SEO | | jandunlop0 -
Hreflang on non-canonical pages
Hi! I've been trying to figure out what is the best way to solve this dilemma with duplicate content and multiple languages across domains. 1 product info page 2 same product but GREEN
Technical SEO | | LarsEriksson
3 same product but RED
4 same product but YELLOW **Question: ** Since pages 2,3,4 just varies slightly I use the canonical tag to indicate they are duplicates of page 1. Now I also want to indicate there are other language versions with the_ rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _element. Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on the canonical page only pointing to the canonical page with "x" language. Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on all pages pointing to the canonical page with the "x" language? Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on all pages and then point it to the translated page (even if it is not a canonical page) ? /Lars0 -
REL Canonical Error
In my crawl diagnostics it showing a Rel=Canonical error on almost every page. I'm using wordpress. Is there a default wordpress problem that would cause this?
Technical SEO | | mmaes0