Disappearing Rel=Canonical Code
-
Hi,
I've been getting a lot of rel=canonical warnings from seomoz. I went into the original pages and pasted in plain text the following code:
link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/blog/my-awesome-blog-post"<
(the > are reversed).
After a few crawls I couldn't see any effect from posting the code. When I went and checked again, it didn't stay in the wysiwyg editor. It disappeared!
We are using Drupal 6. Could someone tell me what code I should be pasting?
Thanks!
-
Hi Keri,
Thanks for the message! We are getting double content warnings so I thought that the absence of a rel=canonical script was causing the double content warning. Appreciate the confirmation - that saved a TON of time.
Cheers!
-
Hi! Those are actually rel=canonical notices, not warnings. It's a note to let you know that they are there and to make sure everything looks OK, not that there's something wrong.
-
I am glad :}
cheers
-
Hi Ayaz,
How odd! I was able to control F and find the rel=canonical link in the page source. I wonder why it doesn't show up in wysiwyg??
Thanks for that - very, very helpful!
-
You can do that by loading the page in your browser, right click somewhere and view source. or you can provide the link here and i can take a quick look for you.
-
Hi Ayaz,
That was a great idea to clear the cache. Unfortunately it didn't work.
I'm actually not sure how to verify on the page source code...
Thanks!
-
Hi, have you verified in the page's source code if the canonical code is showing up, or if you are using any sort of cache system, its wise to clear the cache and check agian.
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
-
ASP Canonical and Internal Linking
Hello - I'm working with a large ASP website and trying to troubleshoot issues I believe might be related to how the canonical element is used. On page - all internal links, including navigation links, use the following format (uppercase) - website.com**/F**older/Folder/Product . So, any page navigated to will always display the uppercase version of the URL. And, all of these pages have the canonical tag pointing to the lowercase version of the URL. The pages included in Google's index are all lowercase versions of the URL like this - website.com**/f**older/folder/product . My concern is that a lot of internal authority flow is being impacted/negated because all internal links point to the uppercase versions of URLs and all those pages reference the lowercase version URL in the canonical reference. Is this a valid concern?
On-Page Optimization | | LA_Steve0 -
Ecommerce Canonical Question
Hi all, first question (eek) Could I pick the brains of fellow users around an issue we are having with canonical urls on a magento website. At the moment we do not have these enabled as it seems to break our indexing. Cut a long story short, we have thousands of products but haven't rewritten many of the descriptions from the manufacturers yet and so have noindexed all the product pages (freeing them as we go). The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site. For example, if you go to Dresses, there then are several filtering options which would allow you to choose a colour, shape and material - if you wished to filter that precisely. These filtering options are all crawlable and so we would then have a page that google could index for, for example, Green Lace Maxi Dress. All good there, few people search for specific products and a lot search for types of products so we are covered. To get back to the issue at hand. If we enable the canonical option on our magento plugin it will stop us from being able to target these terms. Whereas the filtering option would create domain.com/dress/green/maxi/lace with the page title of Green Lace Maxi Dress, if we enable the canonical part of the seo plugin the canonical link which would be added to the page would be - instantly removing our ability to rank for longer tail dress related searches (we are not going to compete with the big players on the premium terms, yet!). There are alternative plugins we can buy for magento to add the correct tag, however, if every page's canonical just points back it itself like this, is there really much point spending nearly $1000 on the 4 licences we would need to cover our range of sites. Is it really necessary, in this case, that we have a canonical for the product filtering? Sorry for the long post, hope it made sense. Thanks for any assistance.
On-Page Optimization | | DSCarl0 -
Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag. We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong? Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time. A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these. Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
Pagination with parameter and rel prev rel next
Hi there: I have a doubt about how using the pagination and rel prev | rel next, I will try to sum up this example of pagination: the page number 1 is SEO friendly in order to index it, It also gets metarobots: index, follow. The other ones (pagination), instead, have noindex, follow. In fact, these URLs are not SEO friendly because of they have the parameter "?" to set up pagination, so for this reason, in the past, It has been decided not to index them. Would you suggest also to use rel="prev" rel="next" in this situation? Or would it be better to set up the others ones (pagination) in "SEO friendly" and then, to set up the rel prev | rel next? Thanks a lot in advance for helping 🙂 Greetings Francesca
On-Page Optimization | | Red_educativa0 -
Conflicting Canonical Tag in On-Page Report
I'm going through my site with the "One-Page report card for some PPC landing pages. If I have this canonical tag on my page : I get a Fail in the "Critical Factors Section here: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical but a Pass in the Optional Factors here: Canonical URL Tag Usage If I take the canonical link out, the opposite happens, what am I missing? Is the format wrong? Thanks Michael
On-Page Optimization | | mjrinvent0 -
Rel Canonical Warning on most pages
I have an e-commerce website and have recently started using SEO moz. candygalaxy.com is the site. I have over 2000 pages that i am receiving the Rel Canonical notice for, which is essentially everyone of my pages. I'm a little bit confused as to what this means, good or bad... I also have over 1800 pages with to many links. I think this is being caused by the fact that my drop down menus' are quite extensive and begin counted on every page. Any tips on how to make those menu's links not count? So that i can reduce the total number of links per page? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Jonathan_Murrell0 -
"Canonical URL Tag Usage" recommendation in SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool
Here comes another one related to SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool. The tool says the following about one of our pages: Canonical URL Tag Usage Explanation: Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to
On-Page Optimization | | gerardoH
use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future
developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe
the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic
today. Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page. Let's say our page is http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand and on its header we'll place the following tag: Is this correct? I thought the canonical tag was meant for duplicates of the original page, for example: http://www.example.com/brands/print/abc-brand href="http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand**?SESSID=123** Thanks in advance.0