Is your live site supposed to have rel canonical tags?
-
I recently started working for a company and got them to use Moz and I have found that our secure site and our live sites are creating "duplicate content" according to the Crawl Diagnostics feature. On our secure site we have rel canonical tags pointing to our live site. I'm not super familiar with rel canonical tags, but our developer says we're doing the right thing. Would love any insight you guys may have if this is actually duplicate content or not. Thanks so much!
-
Agree with Dave's comments. 1) Get the syntax updated on your canonical links at a minimum. 2) Yes your canonical solution will "work", but it is not best practice. This "solution" is really a last resort. I would try and push to move away from using canonicals this way. You optimally want 1 URL.
Just to add some color, a great / classic video on this was made by Matt Cutts. He gives all kinds of examples where you could have duplicate URLs, i.e. www vs non www subdomain, sorting parameters added onto the URL, different file extensions, capitalization changes, etc. He then gives 3 options to fix them.
-
Best practice: Fix your site where you only have one URL per content item and link to it consistently (Best solution)
-
Use 301 redirects to consolidate to one URL (Next best solution)
-
Use a canonical link, if you cannot do 1 or 2. (Last resort)
Note that Matt says that they treat a canonical as a strong suggestion (it is treated similar to a 301), but they do not always have to follow it. He repeatedly says, use the first two options, and would NOT recommend a canonical as your best or first option.
My favorite quote is at 2:24 in the video, "Developers keep SEOs in business"
What your developer may notice is that Matt does say that using a canonical link for consolidating http and https will work. No one here would say that it would not, it is just not optimal. Sure, you can use a pair of scissors to cut your lawn, "it will work". It doesn't mean it's the best idea. I would think any developer worth his/her salt would want to have "clean code" and having duplicate URLs is not "clean" by SEO standards
Ok, so now you need to go back to the developer or your manager with an argument that is stronger than just, "Well, some random dude on the Moz forum said that Matt Cutt's from Google said it was preferred not to use a canonical link even though it would work". I would never want to leave you in such a position. Here is what will/can happen over time if you stay with your current setup.
-
Report consolidation issues. When you look at GA for traffic or OSE for links, any spidering tool for technical issues, social sharing counts, you now have split data for any given page potentially. Sure there are ways around this, but now you have to spend all your time "fixing" reports that should not be broken to start with. Trust me, this will come back to bite you on the bum and will cripple your efforts to show the efficacy of your SEO work. Now who really wants that?
-
Link juice consolidation issues. With any redirect - you lose a bit of link juice. If you have links to both sets of URLs, any single page is not getting as much credit as it should.
-
Down the line 301 redirect bloat. If you ever change anything and need to setup a 301 redirect, now you have to setup 2 of them and having too many 301s can negatively impact server performance.
One last thing. If you can get the URLs consolidated into one using 301s etc. Go with the https That is the way that we are headed with the web and so you might as well get going in that direction.
Good luck!
-
-
I really appreciate the response and the added information. I guess we will see if anyone else responds!
-
I'd be interested in hearing what someone else has to say about the way the canonicals are coded. You're doing yours similar to the way I do DNS Prefetching with the double slash to start the URL:
It works fine with prefetching as all the browser needs to do is find the IP of the domain but I'm not sure here how it'll handle sub-directories including www and I hate variables even when they're "it should work". The more common way to canonicalize your secured page would be:
/>
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any direct experience with this but at the core of technical SEO issues I always lean to "most common usage" and "how Google shows it in their examples" just to make sure there is minimal chance of hiccups or issues.
That aside though, the developer is right though I'd always still prefer to just see the pages at a single URL. Since that can't be done however ... canonicals are the way to go.
-
That is correct! Here is an example of two URL's of what i'm talking about:
http://www.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinship
https://agrouptt4.secure2.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinshipDoes this help clarify my question? I hope so!
-
I'm not sure I entirely understand the scenario so let me note how I'm hearing it to make sure my understanding is correct to put the answer into context. Please do let me know if my understanding of the scenario is wrong as that may well change my thoughts on it.
You note that your secure site and live site are creating duplicate content. Of course a secure site can be live but I'm taking this to mean you have an area behind a login. That it's creating duplicate content is making me think that a lot of the core information is the same and I'm guessing many of the same pages.
If this is all correct and you can't put the duplicated pages onto one URL only then the canonicals are the way to go and your developer is correct.
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
-
Link check via open site explorer not working?
Not sure why this is happening but when i run our site though open site explorer it is only coming back with 1 link yet we have at least 10 - 20? our site is https://www.fastlabels.co.uk and i tried without the https:// so www.fastlabels.co.uk Any help would be appreciated.
Moz Pro | | BobAnderson0 -
Can someone kindly explain what 'Crawl Issue Found: No rel="canonical" Tags' means? Is this a critical error and how can it be rectified?
Can someone kindly explain what 'Crawl Issue Found: No rel="canonical" Tags' means? Is this a critical error and how can it be rectified?
Moz Pro | | JoshMcLean0 -
My Campaign only crawled 3 pages on my site
On my first crawl of a new campaign, the software only crawled 3 pages. XXXaceXXXscholarships.org any ideas?
Moz Pro | | Santaur0 -
I know our business listed in Yahoo and medranks.com (for example). But my open site explorer report doesn't show those. however on their sites, I see the listing. Why is this?
I know our business listed in Yahoo and medranks.com (for example). But my open site explorer report doesn't show those links on the inbound report. however on their respective sites, I see the listing when I search for us. And the link does work..... Why is this? Why don't I see it on the open site report?
Moz Pro | | cschwartzel0 -
To Many Links on site
I've had an issue with to many links on the site. My drop down menu, secondary footer and footer. The report told me that I had 253 links on each page. I then programmed my secondary footer to dynamic and ran a crawl and my links reduced accordingly to 201. Then turned the footer into dynamic and ran a crawl with my links increasing to 1500. This also happened between each phase but en went away. Oddly enough, my domain authority increased as well as other factors in the crawl report. This too many links thing is driving me crazy. Please provide some guidance.
Moz Pro | | CHADHARRIS0 -
Why does site explorer keep crashing?
For around the last 24 hours, every time I run site explorer it gets to just over a quarter of the way through and then just stops. I've tried this with different sites and it makes no difference. Although this is the first time I've had this problem (I don't use the tool regularly myself) one of my colleagues says it often happens to her. Is this a problem SEOmoz can explain and/or fix?
Moz Pro | | Chuck-Boom0 -
Site is showing forwarded /301 to another website
My site http://riyas.in is showing a 301 redirect or a forward to http://flicker.com/muhammedriyas . I had done a 301 redirect long before from my site to this domain, but i removed that after 2-3 days. Please help me to solve this problem. I attached a screen shot seomoz1.jpg
Moz Pro | | riyas_0 -
Is there such thing as a site free from errors?
Or is this a given? I am new to SEO and SEOmoz. One of my campaigns is completley free of errors...the others are a work in progress. Now I realize that SEO is never done, but can a site actually be free of errors? If so... I just gave myself a pat on the back.
Moz Pro | | AtoZion0