Notice rel canonical
-
Hi, Why does my sites get the crawler notice for rel canonical when using the PRO account crawlers??
The canonical is there and it works, and to me it looks just like any other canonical link, the canonical is only at some links but not everyone, why is that?
-
Its just a notive to let you know they are there, Rel canonicals are somthing you would nort want in the wrong page, so letting you know where they are is a good thing
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
-
Duplicate Content errors - not going away with canonical
I am getting Duplicate Content Errors reported by Moz on search result pages due to parameters. I went through the document on resolving Duplicate Content errors and implemented the canonical solution to resolve it. The canonical in the header has been in place for a few weeks now and Moz is still showing the pages as Duplicate Content despite the canonical reference. Is this a Moz bug? http://mathematica-mpr.com/news/?facet={81C018ED-CEB9-477D-AFCC-1E6989A1D6CF}
Moz Pro | | jpfleiderer0 -
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 -
2 canonical links on 1 page, 1 for print version
Our developer has added a 2nd canonoical link for the "print" version of our page. I read on another post that this appears to be not be the correct way to do this. Is there a better way ? Here is an example of the code:
Moz Pro | | foodsleuth0 -
Rel Canonical
Just had my site crawled by Moz Pro for the 2nd time and its flagged up 925 Rel Canonical issues. Most of the pages are similar but with different content. Please can someone tell me what i need to do to sort this issue...? www.indigocarhire.co.uk Thanks
Moz Pro | | RGOnline0 -
Google Algorithm Update July 30, 2012 - Anyone else notice a major drop in keyword rankings
From July 30th to the 31st many of my keyword rankings in Google plumited 30 spots or more. Has anyone else notice this on their site? Does anyone have any idea for the presumed penalty? I can PM my site information if needed for further assistance. As always thank you for the assistance, and any help in this matter is greatly appreciated!
Moz Pro | | BethA1 -
Canonical link on canonical url
This might seem a bit of an odd one, but we seem to be going around in circles on this when using the on page optimizer tool. We have an ecommerce site (magento) which by default is putting a canonical link in the header on every product page. For example; www.example.com/product1.html has the But when we run the on page optimiser tool, we're losing points on the critical section for not having canonical set correctly. If we remove the tag, we get the tick and the a grade, but then further down the report we lose a tick for not using canonical links. What are we missing here?
Moz Pro | | andyjsi0 -
Duplicate page content showing up with proper use of canonical tag
Hi, In the Crawl diagnostics reports, I'm getting lots of duplicate errors warnings e.g. duplicate page title. In most cases these are tracking urls and the page has a canonical tag pointing to the original page. It would be helpful if the crawl analysis reports could separate these out from ones that are of genuine concern. It can also happen when there's a noindex tag on a page. Thanks, Leigh
Moz Pro | | Leighm0 -
Rel=canonical
Hi, there is something puzzling us about the rel=canonical reports... On the general report that is generated after the system crawls our site, we have blue flags on the rel=canonical tag, but the flags don't actually specify exactly what is wrong, they just say: "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical." so we presumed that we should take the rel=canonical tag out of our pages, and after we did so, we noticed that the on-page-report-card (the one that shows up when you run the keyword page optimization tool from the research tools) says (close to the bottom of the report) that we should have 1 canonical tag on each page. So right now we're confused, the general website crawl report flags the rel canonical as being bad and then the on page report flags not having them, we don't really know what to do, should we keep the rel=canonical or not? We are using wordpress to power our site, wordpress has a built-in system for generating the rel canonical for each page, I've checked that and the tags are being generated properly, but we have no idea why the general website report flags them in blue, the error message is not too comprehensive. Any help or information you could provide would be much appreciated. Our website is taxproblem.org thanks.
Moz Pro | | joemas990