Is there a work around for Rel Canonical without header access?
-
In my work as an SEO writer, I work closely with web designers and usually have behind the scenes access.
However, the last three clients who hired me have web designers that are not allowing admin access to anyone else (including the clients) outside of their companies/small business.
Is there a work around for the Rel Canonical element that usually is placed in the header? I am using All-In-One-SEO plug-in to address part of this issue.
Sage advice or discussion on this is appreciated!
-
I totally understand, I've been spoiled by working with web designers that are very customer service oriented and who have not held their customers hostage...so this has been very disheartening on several levels.
All three of the clients have been referred to other web designers per my recommendation. One has moved, one is waiting for a little while, and the other has not decided yet.
I have managed to do some canonical meta work using the plug-in and appreciate your sharing the other options available.
-
I hate to say this, but I'm going to, because I have no tolerance for design companies and hosting companies who hold clients hostage (and I've worked at a design/hosting company, so I don't buy 98% of the excuses for that behavior)...
Is there any way to hack the plug-in or META data, based on the access you DO have. For example, the META description sits in the header. What if you entered a description like:
This is my meta description.">
Short of that, there's not a lot you can do with no access. Push comes to shove, you may have to let the client know that, to do your job, they need to divorce the design from the hosting. A WordPress CMS can live anywhere - there's no reason the design company should be sitting on it.
Actually, just for reference, I'll add that there are other solutions, but they're usually very technical and somewhat costly. For example, some SEO companies have proxy hardware/software that sits on top of existing sites. What it basically does is inject code on top of what gets served up by the web server. That way, the SEO company can add tags, etc. without direct access to the server. You still need access to the host, though (or cooperation), and typically this is an enterprise-level solution (in other words, $$$).
-
Thanks for chiming in. Unfortunately, access is a big issue for the web design company and so the only changes I can get in are those I can do using the plug-in and some of the meta fields. Just attempting to prevent dilution and drive the link juice to the main content rather than the transient/time contingent information.
It is a private site design with integration on a Word Press CMS. I actually think the design work is awesome but without the access I am used to for doing my work, it makes it difficult to make adjustments as I need to.
-
Unfortunately, if you really have no access at all, there's isn't much you can do. The best alternative to a canonical tag, in most cases, is a 301-redirect, and you'd need some kind of access for that, too (hosting account, server access, .htaccess rights, etc.).
It depends a lot on the situation, of course. If you're just trying to get some bad URLs out of the index, you could try parameter blocking in Google Webmaster Tools. If you have Robots.txt access, that might open up some other options (although it's limited and only an alternative in a couple of cases).
I assume this is some sort of CMS system or a hosted solution?
What are you trying to achieve/solve with the canonical?
-
Thanks for responding, already asked and they won't budge.
They also are using some of my seo nuances on a competitive site in the same market. Don't trust them any more with those seo details so hoping for other ideas.
-
As far as I know, there is not a way to do this. It's also kind of really strange they won't open up the template to be altered. Could you ask them for access - or just provide them the code to use?
Even if there WAS a way to use rel=canconical in a nonstandard way - I don't think you would want to do that - as it may not be supported across all engines.
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=64f490887853e7a2&hl=en
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
-
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" of .html/ to .html
Hi, could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless? I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls. http://www.example.com/petra.html/
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
to
http://www.example.com/petra.html I mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ??? Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical. What is your position here?0 -
Home page canonical issues
I think I’ve got a canonical issue with a client’s site that I’m having problems with I’ve noticed in their analytics that they receive traffic from themselves. I’ve used ‘ rel canonical’ throughout the site to avoid any dup issues and I have 301’ed every other variation of the home page I can think of. I don’t have full access to the back end of the host to control any of the iis as it’s an asp site. They seem to be getting traffic from their site under the URL of, example.com I’ve 301 redirected www.example.com/home.asp www.example.com/default.asp www.example.com/index.asp to www.example.com And 'rel canonical' the home page to www.example.com but still seem to be having the same problem any ideas? Thanks
Technical SEO | | FarkyRafiq0 -
Should I be using use rel=author in this case?
We have a large blog, which it appears one of our regional blogs (managed separately) is simply scraping content off of our blog and adding it to theirs. Would adding rel=author (for all of our guest bloggers) help eliminate google seeing the regional blog content as scraped or duplicate? Is rel=author the best solution here?
Technical SEO | | VistageSEO0 -
Rel="external"
Hi all, I got a link and its off a site and marked up with rel="external". Is this a followed or nofollowed link? Does it pass link juice? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Sharer0 -
URL query strings and canonical tag
Hi, I have recently been getting my comparison website redesigned and developed onto wordpress and the site is now 90% complete. Part of the redesign has meant that there are now dynamic urls in the format: http://www.mywebsite.com/10-pounds-productss/?display=cost&value=10 I have other pages similar to this but with different content for the different price ranges and these are linked to from the menus: http://www.mywebsite.com/20-pounds-products/?display=cost&value=20 Now my questions are: 1. I am using Joost's All-in-one SEO plugin and this adds a canonical tag to the page that is pointing to http://www.mywebsite.com/10-pounds-products/ which is the permalink. Is this OK as it is or should i change this to http://www.mywebsite.com/10-pounds-products/?display=cost&value=10 2. Which URL will get indexed, what gets shown as the display URL in the SERPs and what page will users land on? I'm a bit confused so apologies if these seem like silly questions. Thanks
Technical SEO | | bizarro10000 -
Is my non-www domain working
I believe we may have an issue with out domains and links which is causing our seo to suffer. As far as I'm aware, our non-www domain is being treated as a different domain name. Open Site explorer returns different information for each one. However, when I go to the non-www domain in my browser (I have to force it using the http as otherwise the browser auto inserts the www) my browser returns a page cannot be found. But there may be a chance this is actually an issue with the server we access the internet via at work. I need to establish 100% beyond all doubt that our non-www domain is not working. This is the www: http://www.jetbookingdirect.com/ This is the non-www: http://jetbookingdirect.com/ If it is definitely not working, is the right thing to do to ask my web host to setup a 301 redirect? Further, I thought redirects could only point to one address. If we 301 redirect, if someone accesses a specific page via the non-www domain, does it then take them to the correct page? Also, is it safe to say that our non-www domain not working has affected our SEO, and if we fix it, will it improve things for us? Thank you so much for clarification on this issue.
Technical SEO | | JetBookMike0 -
Canonical on ecommerce pages
I have seen some competitors using the nofollow tag as well as canonical on all refinements and sorts on their ecommerce pages. Example being if you went to their hard drive category page and refined by 500gb hard drives then that page would have a canonical element to send it back to hard drives page without the refinement. I see how this could be good for control indexation and the amount pages Google crawls, but do you see problems in using the canonical tag this way? Also I have seen competitors have category page descriptions (describing what that type of product is) on all pagenation and refinements (the exact same block of text on all of the pages). Would this be a duplicate content problem or is it not that big of a deal since the content is only on their site so they are only competiting with themselves. Thanks for your help
Technical SEO | | Gordian0