Rel="canonical" and rewrite
-
Hi,
I'm going to describe a scenario on one of my sites, I was wondering if someone could tell me what is the correct use of rel="canonical" here.
Suppose I have a rewrite rule that has a rule like this:
RewriteRule ^Online-Games /main/index.php
So, in the index file, do I set the rel="canonical" to Online-Games or /main/index.php?
Thanks.
-
Great, thanks a lot!
-
Your example is not a case where you would use canonical links.
Canonical links are useful when you have several pages which are accessible vial individual URLs and do not redirect to a single page, yet they have very similar content.
A great example is a category page in an online store. Quite often, you will find various sorting methods, like price, popularity, etc. These various sorting methods usually add a parameter to the URL, something like "order=price". Yet, the content remains largely the same.
In cases such as above, the different pages should have a canonical reference to the main page.
In your case, you simply need a 301 redirect, that's all.
-
None of the above. If you have a .htaccess file, you need to 301 /main/index.php to OnlineGames. Another option is to tell index.php it can only be called as OnlineGames, or 301 to that directory. The reason is you're pretending that index.php is a directory. You don't want to waste the time of bots crawling the same page twice so just 301 it. You remove the issue entirely and save your crawl budget.
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
-
How should I deal with "duplicate" content in an Equipment Database?
The Moz Crawler is identifying hundreds of instances of duplicate content on my site in our equipment database. The database is similar in functionality to a site like autotrader.com. We post equipment with pictures and our customers can look at the equipment and make purchasing decisions. The problem is that, though each unit is unique, they often have similar or identical specs which is why moz (and presumably google/bing) are identifying the content as "duplicate". In many cases, the only difference between listings are the pictures and mileage- the specifications and year are the same. Ideally, we wouldn't want to exclude these pages from being indexed because they could have some long-tail search value. But, obviously, we don't want to hurt the overall SEO of the site. Any advice would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | DohenyDrones0 -
Is the " meta content tag" important?
I am currently trying to optimize my companies website and I noticed that meta content is exactly the same for all of the pages on our website. Isn't this problematic? The actual content on the webpage is not the same and a lot of the pages don't have these keywords in the content.
Technical SEO | | AubbiefromAubenRealty0 -
Rel=canonical overkill on duplicate content?
Our site has many different health centers - many of which contain duplicate content since there is topic crossover between health centers. I am using rel canonical to deal with this. My question is this: Is there a tipping point for duplicate content where Google might begin to penalize a site even if it has the rel canonical tags in place on cloned content? As an extreme example, a site could have 10 pieces of original content, but could then clone and organize this content in 5 different directories across the site each with a new url. This would ultimately result in the site having more "cloned" content than original content. Is this at all problematic even if the rel canonical is in place on all cloned content? Thanks in advance for any replies. Eric
Technical SEO | | Eric_Lifescript0 -
Duplicate Page Titles Warnings, htaccess Rewrite & Canonical Links.
Hey guys, Just signed up for a pro account and I am getting Duplicate Page Title warnings on links that are duplicate, rewritten for SEO, but have a canonical href tag. I have two sets of links in my store: SEO friendly: http://www.mysite.com/item/iphone-case Operational link: http://www.mysite.com/shop/product.php?pid=11 This operational link however has a href canonical tag pointing to the SEO friendly link as being the primary link. My question is; Do I need to worry about this Duplicate Page Title Warning if I am using a canonical tag on the Operational link pointing to the SEO friendly link? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | jason3600 -
Help with Webmaster Tools "Not Followed" Errors
I have been doing a bunch of 301 redirects on my site to address 404 pages and in each case I check the redirect to make sure it works. I have also been using tools like Xenu to make sure that I'm not linking to 404 or 301 content from my site. However on Friday I started getting "Not Followed" errors in GWT. When I check the URL that they tell me provided the error it seems to redirect correctly. One example is this... http://www.mybinding.com/.sc/ms/dd/ee/48738/Astrobrights-Pulsar-Pink-10-x-13-65lb-Cover-50pk I tried a redirect tracer and it reports the redirect correctly. Fetch as googlebot returns the correct page. Fetch as bing bot in the new bing webmaster tools shows that it redirects to the correct page but there is a small note that says "Status: Redirection limit reached". I see this on all of the redirects that I check in the bing webmaster portal. Do I have something misconfigured. Can anyone give me a hint on how to troubleshoot this type of issue. Thanks, Jeff
Technical SEO | | mybinding10 -
How unique does a page need to be to avoid "duplicate content" issues?
We sell products that can be very similar to one another. Product Example: Power Drill A and Power Drill A1 With these two hypothetical products, the only real difference from the two pages would be a slight change in the URL and a slight modification in the H1/Title tag. Are these 2 slight modifications significant enough to avoid a "duplicate content" flagging? Please advise, and thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | WhiteCap0 -
NoIndex/NoFollow pages showing up when doing a Google search using "Site:" parameter
We recently launched a beta version of our new website in a subdomain of our existing site. The existing site is www.fonts.com with the beta living at new.fonts.com. We do not want Google to crawl the new site until it's out of beta so we have added the following on all pages: However, one of our team members noticed that google is displaying results from new.fonts.com when doing an "site:new.fonts.com" search (see attached screenshot). Is it possible that Google is indexing the content despite the noindex, nofollow tags? We have double checked the syntax and it seems correct except the trailing "/". I know Google still crawls noindexed pages, however, the fact that they're showing up in search results using the site search syntax is unsettling. Any thoughts would be appreciated! DyWRP.png
Technical SEO | | ChrisRoberts-MTI0 -
Rel=Canonical being ignored?
Hi all, We have a toys website that has several categories. It's setup such that each product has a primary category amongst the categories within it can be found. For example... Addendum's primary url is http://www.brightminds.co.uk/childrens-toys/board-games/addendum.htm but it can also be found here http://www.brightminds.co.uk/learning-toys/maths-learning/addendum.htm. Hence, in the for that url it has a rel=canonical that points to the first url. For some reason though seomoz ignores this and reports duplicate page content. It doesn't seem to record the canonical tag either. Any ideas what's going on? Thanks, Josh.
Technical SEO | | joshgeake_gmail.com0