Rel=Canonical Tag on Homepage
-
I have a Rel=canonical Tag (link rel="canonical" href="htttps://homepage.com") on the homepage. Could this possibly have a negative effect? is it necessary?
-
I would suggest having a bit of a read over this old blog post which gives you the necessary info to implement the rel=canonical tag correctly.
https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
I do not think that having the rel=canonical tag pointing to itself would necessarily harm your site, but it is probably best to avoid this if possible as is redundant code. If you have a dynamic meta / header include this might be the best solution for you if you cannot control it manually or by editing the code. I often have the rel canonical running in numerous pages, especially to help reduce MVT pages from being indexed.
-
Hi there,
It's not necessary, because you are pointing the same URL, there is no actual canonicalization.
Personaly I believe that it will not do any harm, but its redundant. And it's not advisable to have redundant code.Hope it helps.
GR. -
It's not necessary to point a canonical tag back to itself. Seems to be a debate about whether or not it's negative but on the whole it's a misuse of the tag to itself.
From reading around, the only advantage would be if someone where to scrape your content and the canonical link would still be in the html assuming they don't remove it so you would get the credit.
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
-
Does Google considers the direct traffic on the pages with rel canonical tags?
Hi community, Let's say there is a duplicate page (A) pointing to original page (B) using rel canonical tag. Pagerank will be passed from Page A to B as the content is very similar and Google honours it hopefully. I wonder how Google treats the direct traffic on the duplicate Page A. We know that direct traffic is also an important ranking factor (correct me if I'm wrong). If the direct traffic is high on the duplicate page A, then how Google considers it? Will there be any score given to original page B? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
How should the Heading Tags be used in Blogs to gain the Best results in SEO?
There are various Heading Tags from H1 to H6. In what order and priority should they be used in order to get best reach and ranking in google. Is every Tag a must in a blog?
Algorithm Updates | | sne79790 -
Can we add header tags followed by header tags without text in-between? Best practice?
Hi all, I need clarification on this. We are adding new pages where H2 is followed by few bold bullet point headings with plain text description under each bullet point. I am just wondering whether we can given these bold bullet points as H3 tags as just leave as text. In the below example, can "**Good for website" **and "**Good for visitors" **be H3 tags or not? Benefits of SEO (H2) Good for website: Followed for best practices to show in search results Good for visitors: Will give better user experience. Number of H3 tags followed by a H2 is fine? In fact header tags followed by any header tag if Okay without plain text in-between? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Homepage title tag: "Keywords for robots" vs "Phrases for users"
Hi all, We keep on listening and going through the articles that "Google is all about user" and people suggesting to just think about users but not search engine bots. I have gone through the title tags of all our competitors websites. Almost everybody directly targeted primary and secondary keywords and few more even. We have written a very good phrase as definite title tag for users beginning with keyword. But we are not getting ranked well comparing to the less optimised or backlinked websites. Two things here to mention is our title tag is almost 2 years old. Title tag begins with secondary keyword with primary keyword like "seo google" is secondary keyword and "seo" is primary keyword". Do I need to completely focus on only primary keyword to rank for it? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Why has my homepage been replaced in Google by my Facebook page?
Hi. I was wondering if others have had this happen to them. Lately, I've noticed that on a couple of my sites the homepage no longer appears in the Google SERP. Instead, a Facebook page I've created appears in the position the homepage used to get. My subpages still get listed in Google--just not the homepage. Obviously, I'd prefer that both the homepage and Facebook page appear. Any thoughts on what's going on? Thanks for your help!
Algorithm Updates | | TuxedoCat0 -
If the homepage is sandboxed for a keyword is the whole site sandboxed for that keyword?
If the homepage of a website has been sandboxed for certain keywords does this mean that the whole site is sandboxed for them keywords or just the homepage? If a new sub-page was created with quality unique content, would it be possible to get that sub-page ranked for the same keywords that have been sandboxed on the homepage? I have asked many other SEO professionals this same question and nobody really knows for sure. Do you?
Algorithm Updates | | Mark A Preston0 -
Should I use canonical tags on my site?
I'm trying to keep this a generic example, so apologies if this is too vague. On my main website, we've always had a duplicate content issue. The main focus of our site is breaking down to specific, brick and mortar locations. We have to duplicate the description of product/service for every geographic location (this is a legal requirement). So for example, you might have the parent "product/service" page targeting the term, and then 100's of sub pages with "product/service San Francisco", "product/service Austin", etc. These pages have identical content except for the geographic location is dynamically swapped out. There is also additional useful content like google map of area, local resources, etc. As I said this was always seen as an SEO issue, specifically you could see in the way that googlebot would crawl pages and how pagerank flowed through the site that having 100's of pages with identical copy and just swapping out the geographic location wasn't seen as good content, however we still always received traffic and conversions for the long tail geographic terms so we left it. Las year, with Panda, we noticed a drop in traffic and thought it was due to this duplicate issue so I added canonical tags to all our geographic specific product/service pages that pointed back to the parent page, that seemed to be received well by google and traffic was back to normal in short order. However, recently what I notice a LOT in our SERP pages is if I type in a geographic specific term, i.e. "product/service san francisco", our deep page with the canonical tag is what google is ranking. Google inserts its own title tag on the SERP page and leaves the description blank as it doesn't index the page due to the canonical tag on the page. Essentially what I think it is rewarding is the site architecture which organizes the content to the specific geo in the URL: site.com/service/location/san-francisco. Other than that there is no reason for it to rank that page. Sorry if this is lengthy, thanks for reading all of that! Essentially my question is, should I keep the canonical tags on the site or take them off since Google insists on ranking the page? If I am ranking already then the potential upside to doing that is ranking higher (we're usually in the 3-6 spot on the result page) and also higher CTR because we can get a description back on our resulting page. The counter argument is I'm already ranking so leave it and focus on other things. Appreciate your thoughts on this!
Algorithm Updates | | edu-SEO0 -
Google decreased use of Meta Descripiton Tag
Over the past month or so I have noticed that Google is not using the meta description for my pages but is instead pulling text from the actual page to show on the SERP. Is Google placing less emphasis on meta descriptions?
Algorithm Updates | | PerriCline0