Diagnosing Canonical Errors Is Screaming frog reliable?
-
Morning from suny & warm wetherby UK
On this page http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/how-we-care-for-you/right-to-manage/ screaming frog is citing a canonical error but I'm confused as this piece of code is in place:
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/About/right-to-manage" />
So my question is please - "Does this page http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/how-we-care-for-you/right-to-manage/ have a caninical error or is screaming frog useless?
Other examples where screaming frog is picking up canonical errors include:
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/what-our-customers-say/right-to-manage/
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/buying-a-home/right-to-manage/Oh forgot to say the preffered version is http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/About/right-to-manage/
Any insights welcvome
-
Hey,
Long time since the Question, I was just wondering if you worked it out or not.
Gr.,
Istvan
-
I think Screaming Frog is just warning you that the canonical version doesn't seem to match the display URL. They can't really tell (we have the same problem in SEOmoz tools) what the "right" canonical is - they can just warn of a mismatch.
I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of the dual URLs here. The best canonical implementation is to use one URL. The canonical tag can act as a band-aid, but consistency is still the best defense. Having multiple paths to the same page is rarely beneficial.
-
Having spoke to oiur internal helpdesk (Who I trust & do know what theyre talking about) theyve taken a look at:
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/footer-links/left/right-to-manage/
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/how-we-care-for-you/right-to-manage/
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/buying-a-home/right-to-manage/
http://www.goldsboroughestates.co.uk/what-our-customers-say/right-to-manage/
and I'm afraid they have a different perspective which is they see no canonical problem Hey ho think I'll just set my head on fire then maybe things will be more clearer
-
Hi Istvan - your advice is good but ive just discovered its not been implemented! Time to kick some ass, I'll update you
-
Hey,
Any news on how it went? I am curious if that was the problem or not.
Gr.,
Istvan
-
Hey,
Maybe this helps you a littlebit: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/an-seos-guide-to-http-status-codes
Dr. Pete's article explains well how the status codes work.
Gr.,
Istvan
-
Wow great anser, I'm on to this now & will updat you with how things went
-
Hey there!
I think I have found what your problem is with you canonical link
In your code you have:
And probably you are somewhere forcing the URls to have a / at the end.
So basically you are confusing browsers and search engine bots, because they now cannot tell which is the real version:
SE enters the page. Then it sees that the right version should be the one WITHOUT a "/" at the end, then that pages has a 301 redirect to the version which HAS a "/" at the end of the URL (but that has a canonical which points out that the preffered version should be ). So it is a non-ending circle.
So if you add a / to the end of your URl, your problem should be solved.
Final thought: Screaming Frog is working well.
I hope this was a solution.
Cheers,
Istvan
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
-
What could cause Google to not honor canonical URLs?
I have a strange situation on a website, when I do a Google query of site:example.com all the top indexed results appear to be queries that users can perform on the website. So any random term the user searches for on the website for some reason is causing the search result page to get indexed - like example.com/search/query/random-keywords However, the search results page has a canonical tag on it that points to example.com/search, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything. Any thoughts or ideas why this could be happening?
Technical SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Robots and Canonicals on Moz
We noticed that Moz does not use a robots "index" or "follow" tags on the entire site, is this best practice? Also, for pagination we noticed that the rel = next/prev is not on the actual "button" rather in the header Is this best practice? Does it make a difference if it's added to the header rather than the actual next/previous buttons within the body?
Technical SEO | | PMPLawMarketing0 -
Rel= Canonical
Almost every one of my product has this message: Rel Canonical (Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. ) What is the best way to correct this?
Technical SEO | | tiffany11030 -
My sitemap in Google is coming back with an error
I submitted my xml sitemap to Google Webmaster tools. It is giving an error, not found. 404 Error. But I can't figure out why my site map is signaling a 404. Why? 😞
Technical SEO | | cschwartzel0 -
Canonical efficiency
Hi, I'm creating recommendations for one of my client's site. It's a news site highly based on a regional aspect. One of the main features would be that you can navigate on a high level, we call it inter-regional (with all the regions news) and on the regional level (with only news related to the region) which act as a filter which means that most of my content will be duplicate. To allow the user to navigate the site on the two levels means that all the news pages will be duplicated, one with the inter-regional URL and one with the regional URL. Example: http://www.sitename.com/category/2011/11/07/name-of-the-article http://www.sitename.com/region-name/category/2011/11/07/name-of-the-article The regional URL is the official one, since it has all the keywords I want, and I'm planning to have a canonical on both version with the regional URL. Is there a risk that this would affect my ranking? Any alternatives? I read that I could prevent SE to crawl inter-regional articles using my robot.txt but I'm not fond of that. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Pherogab0 -
Canonical Tag Pointing To The Same URL
Does it matter if a canonical tag points to the URL in which the tag is on? Example Page: http://www.domain.com Canonical tag: rel="canonical" href="http://www.domain.com" /> I only ask because a client of mine has a CMS that automatically does that to every page on the site and there's no way to remove it. Will this have a negative impact or does it not matter at all? Any insights would be great because I can't find a clear answer anywhere online. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | MichaelWeisbaum0 -
Google causing Magento Errors
I have an online shop - run using Magento. I have recently upgraded to version 1.4, and I installed a extension called Lightspeed, a caching module which makes tremendous improvements to Magento's performance. Unfortunately, a confoguration problem, meant that I had to disable the module, because it was generating errors relating to the session, if you entered the site from any page other than the home page. The site is now working as expected. I have Magento's error notification set to email - I've not received emails for errors generated by visitors. However over a 72 hour period, I received a deluge of error emails, which where being caused by Googlebot. It was generating an erro in a file called lightspeed.php Here is an example: URL: http://www.jacksgardenstore.com/tahiti-vulcano-hammock IP Address: 66.249.66.186 Time: 2011-06-11 17:02:26 GMT Error: Cannot send headers; headers already sent in /home/jack/jacksgardenstore.com/user/jack_1.4/htdocs/lightspeed.php, line 444 So several things of note: I deleted lightspeed.php from the server, before any of these error messages began to arrive. lightspeed.php was never exposed in the URL, at anytime. It was referred to in a mod_rewrite rule in .htaccess, which I also commented out. If you clicked on the URL in the error message, it loaded in the browser as expected, with no error messages. It appears that Google has cached a version of the page which briefly existed whilst Lightspeed was enabled. But I though that Google cached generated HTML. Since when does cache a server-side PHP file ???? I've just used the Fetch as Googlebot facility on Webmaster Tools for the URL in the above error message, and it returns the page as expected. No errors. I've had to errors at all in the last 48 hours, so I'm hoping it's just sorted itself out. However I'm concerned about any Google related implications. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Ben
Technical SEO | | atticus70