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
-
Rel=canonical on landing page question
Currently we have two versions of a category page on our site (listed below) Version A: www.example.com/category • lives only in the SERPS but does not live on our site navigation • has links • user experience is not the best Version B: www.example.com/category?view=all • lives in our site navigation • has a rel=canonical to version A • very few links and doesn’t appear in the SERPS • user experience is better than version A Because the user experience of version B is better than version A I want to take out the rel=canonical in version B to version A and instead put a rel=canonical to version B in version A. If I do this will version B show up in the SERPS eventually and replace version A? If so, how long do you think this would take? Will this essentially pass page rank from version A to version B
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Rel Canonical for Exact Same Copy?
I've read about using rel canonical tags for product pages like "blue shorts" vs "red shorts" but if I have two pages with the exact same copy - different URL's - but same copy, can I use a rel canonical tag and be okay for duplicate content purposes? (There is is reason the page is exactly the same, at least for the time being, so I'm just focusing on how not to be get penalized as opposed to rewriting it at the moment). Thanks, Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Expires Header
We are considering adding expires header to our site. If we add this meta tag to expire for a certain date, but we do not make any changes to the site after it expires, can you be penalized for this?
Technical SEO | | tdawson090 -
Rel="canonical"
HI, I have site named www.cufflinksman.com related to Cufflinks. I have also install WordPress in sub domain blog.cufflinksman.com. I am getting issue of duplicate content a site and blog have same categories but content different. Now I would like to rel="canonical" blog categories to site categories. http://www.cufflinksman.com/shop-cufflinks-by-hobbies-interests-movies-superhero-cufflinks.html http://blog.cufflinksman.com/category/superhero-cufflinks-2/ Is possible and also have any problem with Google with this trick?
Technical SEO | | cufflinksman0 -
Rel Author Tag - Attributing Content to a Company
If the content is written by a corporation and cannot be attributed to a specific writer, yet we want to claim the authorship - can a logo be used instead of a headshot in the Google Profile? Researching the above, and found that its a NO, but it can be done somewhat through rel=publisher tag, which at present is not very useful. Any other thoughts?
Technical SEO | | yanaiguana1111 -
Am I Doing this Canonical Right?
Hi,I admit to new to the Mod Rewrite.Here is my mod rewrite in my .htaccess# Begin non-www page protection # <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
Technical SEO | | Force7
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]</ifmodule> # End non-www page protection #If I have my home page set toI really want the canonical to be www.domain.com no trailing slashDid I create a confllict, and if so, how should I change it?0 -
Are there negative SEO implications to pages without any images?
Hi Mozzers, Do you think there are any negative effects of having no images on a page but several hundreds words of text? (There is a logo image and call to action buttons). Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Charlessipe0 -
Canonical tag in preferred and duplicate page
Hi, I have a super spiffy (not) CMS that tends to create some pages at the root level of the site (not where I want it) i.e. www.site.com/page.htm as well as the desired location i.e. www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm . Now obviously a canonical tag inserted into the URL at the undesired location would be the best option, however the source code is exactly the same for both pages (can’t change this) i.e. if I put the canonical tag that reads www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm"/> it will appear in the head section of both pages, the desired URL and the non desired URL. Will a canonical tag inserted into the head section of a the preferred URL directing the search engine spiders pretty much to itself cause more grieft than the solution it offers re duplicate content ? Marc
Technical SEO | | NRMA0