Google +1 not recognizing rel-canonical
-
So I have a few pages with the same content just with a different URL.
http://nadelectronics.com/products/made-for-ipod/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System
http://nadelectronics.com/products/speakers/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System
http://nadelectronics.com/products/digital-music/VISO-1-iPod-Music-System
All pages rel-canonical to:
http://nadelectronics.com/products/made-for-ipod/VISO-1-iPod-Music-SystemMy question is... why can't google + (or facebook and twitter for that matter) consolidate all these pages +1. So if the first two had 5 +1 and the rel-canonical page had 5 +1's. It would be nice for all pages to display 15 +1's not 5 on each.
It's my understanding that Google +1 will gives the juice to the correct page. So why not display all the +1's at the same time.
Hope that makes sense.
-
For facebook, if you use the proper open graph meta data your Likes will be consolidated.
With respect to Google +1, I can share my viewpoint and best guess. You are presently choosing to canonicalize these pages, but they are in fact separate web pages. You can choose to remove the canonical tag at any time so the data needs to be tracked separately.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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 selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Google + and Google Knoladge Graph
I am trying to get things to match up for the company brand websearch and the Google + page and we have had it for years now The knowledge graph on Google is showing the map, address and name (shown in attached image), but is not linked to a G+ page, as when i click the "Are you the business owner?" its is trying to make me create a new G+ business page. Anyone have any ideas on this? Also does the wiki name have to be exact for it to show? As for phone number would that be coming from the DNS record as that is nowhere in the markup rich snippet or normal markup Thanks in advance LC9cWdG
Technical SEO | | David-McGawn0 -
Canonicals being ignored
Hi, I've got a site that I'm working with that has 2 ways of viewing the same page - a property details page. Basically one version if the long version: /property/Edinburgh/Southside-Newington/6CN99V and the other just the short version with the code only on the end: /6cn99v There is a canonical in place from the short version to the long version, and the sitemap.xml only lists the long version HOWEVER - Google is indexing the short version in the majority of cases (not all but the majority). http://www.website.com/property/Edinburgh/Southside-Newington/6CN99V"> Obviously "www.website.com" contains the URL of the site itself. Any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | squarecat.ben0 -
Rel=Canonical Header Location
Hello, I've been trying to get our rel=canonical issues sorted out. A fellow named Ayaz very kindly pointed out that I'm trying to put the code into the wysisyg editor, but this might not be the best place to put the code. We are using Drupal 6. Where do I insert the code? head> <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/blog/my-awesome-blog-post"> Thanks!
Technical SEO | | OTSEO0 -
Rel=canonical and Google analytics referrals
Hello guys, If I put (rel=can) from site1.com/page1 to site2.com/page1, will site2.com see in his Google Analytics that people are coming from site1.com in the referrals section or somewhere else? I can't find anything on the web about that. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | YST0 -
How to improve my google backlinks
Hi i have just checked my google back links for my site www.in2town.co.uk and it has said that i have only five, not sure where these are from as the tool i was using did not tell me. But i have looked at my compeditors and they have a few hundred and some have thousands so i am just wondering what i need to do to compete and get more backlinks. I have been writing articles for other sites, free article sites hoping to get some traffic as well as backlinks, for this has not worked out. i just done a report now and i have got the following information DMOZ Directory ? NoYahoo Directory ? NoDigg 0 Yahoo Indexed Pages ? 0 Bing Indexed Pages 0 I would really like to know what steps i need to take as i feel that i have done a lot of good work but my back links are not improving. any help would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
New Domain Page 7 Google but Page 1 Bing & Yahoo
Hi just wondered what other people's experience is with a new domain. Basically have a client with a domain registered end of May this year, so less than 3 months old! The site ranks for his keyword choice (not very competitive), which is in the domain name. For me I'm not at all surprised with Google's low ranking after such a short period but quite surprsied to see it ranking page 1 on Bing and Yahoo. No seo work has been done yet and there are no inbound links. Anyone else have experience of this? Should I be surprised or is that normal in the other two search engines? Thanks in advance Trevor
Technical SEO | | TrevorJones0 -
Canonical Tag
Does it do anything to place the Canonical tag on the unique page itself? I thought this was only to be used on the offending pages that are the copies. Thanks
Technical SEO | | poolguy0