How to use canonical with mobile site to main site
-
I am pretty sure that the mobile version of the main site needs to be the same canonical link from what I understand. I am trying to find good docuementation that supports this. Even better if its from Google or Matt Cutts.
I have a main domain like http://www.mydomain.com
the mobile version of this is http://www.mydomain.com/m/
Should my canonical be
rel="canonical" href="http://www.mydomain.com"/>
for both these pages?
-
That's all this information i needed, on one easy read guide... thank you
-
Now that was a good answer
-
Sorry, Cesar - you're right, this thread went way off course.
My notes on 301 as preferred vs rel=canonical were strictly focused on potential "duplication issues" brought up by Federico as related to Desktop URLs. The 301, you're right, is the wrong tool for the job when it comes to Desktop/Mobile.
The page I linked to originally - here: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/smartphone-sites/details#separateurls - has the instructions you'd want to follow under "separate URLs."
To clarify with Google which page should be served to which search users (Desktop vs Mobile), you need 1) a rel=alternate tag pointing from Desktop to Mobile and 2) a rel=canonical tag pointing from Mobile to Desktop.
Effectively if you will have the same canonical for both versions - the Desktop home page. Whether or not you have rel=canonicaled the Desktop back to itself (again this doesn't accomplish much but it won't hurt you), the Mobile home page (following the instructions from Google) will be rel=canonicaled back to the Desktop home page.
And yes, if your Mobile home page has a lot of links pointing to it, using this setup should increase the overall authority and ability to rank of your Desktop home page. It will consolidate that link equity at the Desktop home page URL.
Both pages will remain indexed, but Google (learning from the rel=alternate tag) will serve up the Mobile home page only for mobile search users.
Hope that clarifies a bit. Disregard the discussion between Federico and I on the correct use of 301s in this thread, as it was off topic. In short, a 301 will not serve you well in this case. You want one of the three implementations recommended by Google on the page I linked to above (and in your case, the third option for separate URLs sounds best to me).
Best,
Mike -
I marked this as answered but as I read through it I realize that I am more confused.
As I understand a 301 is geared towards telling Google that a page has moved to the new URL permanently.
In my understanding if I were to 301 a mobile user to my mobile version of my homepage as a 301 then I am telling Google this has moved here permanently. Which technically is true for a mobile user but can this have an effect on ranking on the mobile side?
Since there is way less content on the mobile site I am afraid this can impact me on the desktop side.
To me is makes more sense to just redirect a user to the mobile version without a 301 so Google knows that this is simply a redirect and not a 301
Now along with that my original question was more of increasing ranking for my homepage site.
Since I have a separate canonical for both the desktop page as well as the mobile page, my original question was asking whether I should make the canonical on the desktop homepage the exact same as the mobile homepage. I noticed in Google that both desktop and mobile versions of my homepage are indexed. Is this normal?
If I had the same canonical for both pages would that potentially increase the ranking overall for my homepage, since my mobile version is more popular than my desktop version?
Hope that makes sense.
-
This video from Matt Cutts has some good points on that.
Granted we can't always run to the bank with Matt's advice. Google and Bing both handle rel=canonical pretty well these days, and most SEO/related tools have caught up and handle it properly as well. I've even heard some anecdotes from other SEOs that rel=canonical can work "even faster than a 301" in terms of passing page equity and getting alternate URLs dropped from the index.
But a 301 is the established, recognized method for redirection - not just for search engines, but users as well. It's a web standard, whereas rel=canonical is just approaching that status. You'll still find some tools/scrapers that don't yet handle a rel=canonical properly, which can cause some confusion.
Another potential though perhaps not terribly pervasive issue: for multiple home page URLs, for example, a canonical will mean users can still see/interact with the alternate versions, and therefor they can mistakenly link to those alternate versions. A rel=canonical, similar to a 301, loses a bit of PageRank/link equity in the pass. I'd prefer users see and link to one core version of my home page rather than rely on rel=canonical to pass the link value along.
-
You have a source that supports the 301 over canonical as the preferred method?
-
Hi Federico,
A 301 is still the preferred/recommended method to point alternative URLs with exactly the same content back to the core version.
A canonical can achieve this as well, but it's not the preferred, most foolproof method to consolidate link equity and avoid duplication.
A canonical of a URL to the exact URL itself, again, achieves nothing. I'm not suggesting it'll cause some kind of problem (Google/Bing have been able to handle this from the beginning without any "infinite loop" issues), just that this in itself doesn't solve anything.
What you'd want is a canonical tag on those other URLs pointing back to the preferred URL. If you have no way of serving up unique source code per URL variation, then a self-referential canonical would be acceptable. But a 301 would be my first choice.
Maybe splitting hairs a bit.
In the example here, we're talking about desktop vs mobile URLs and how to handle canonical/alternate tags between the two, so duplication issues are a bit off-topic.
Best,
Mike -
Hey Mike,
So basically if the page is unique and there's no other copy with another URL you shouldn't use the canonical tag in that unique page pointing to itself?
I know it's like saying "the original copy of this page is here" while "here" is the same page, but that solves lots of duplicate content issues that might arise while using URL rewrite.
-
Hi Cesar,
-
Adding a canonical tag to the home page pointing to itself does nothing. It can help if someone scrapes your site and republishes it (they will probably scrape the canonical tag too, rendering their scraped/published URL unable to rank and effectively passing any link juice back to you). Otherwise, no need to canonical a page to itself.
-
The best method to send Google the proper signals about the corresponding link between desktop and mobile versions of your pages is to do the following:
- Add a rel="alternate" tag on the desktop version that points to the mobile version
- Add a rel="canonical" to the mobile version that points to the desktop version
Google uses rel="alternate" to serve up pages uniquely suited to particular users. It's used for language/regional specific pages as well as mobile.
Documentation is here: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/smartphone-sites/details
Best,
Mike -
-
I guess not. What do you mean by "indexed differently"?
-
What happens to ranking in the aspect by placing the canonical to both pages does that potentially boost my ranking for my main site if my mobile site was indexed differently this whole time?
-
If the content is the same, within the desktop and mobile version yes. The rel=canonical only points the search engine about which page should be indexed. As the content is the same, indexing the main (desktop) page should do it, as you would need to redirect mobile traffic to the mobile version once they click in the result.
Hope that helps!
Here's a video from Matt Cutts about mobile content:
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
-
When To And When To Not Use AMP
Hi All, I hope someone might be able to help me with this. I am looking at implementing AMP on a website. I have been doing a stack of research into advantages of using AMP etc. However I am struggling to find an answer to when I should not / where not to be implementing AMP. More specifically I see large sites that are running AMP but it does not seem to be on all pages, how is the best way to determine when or when not I should be using AMP. Thanks In Advance, Mark
On-Page Optimization | | amevamark0 -
Rel-nofollow for price comparison site?
I run a price comparison site, so we have TONS of outbound links. Should my outbound links be marked with 'rel=nofollow'?
On-Page Optimization | | lancerpanz0 -
Using a subdomain to improve rankings
I have a pretty simple landing page that at present targets several keywords. Is a good strategy to add a blog to the site on a subdomain with pages targeting individual keywords? Will this help the main domain rank? Also is the best strategy to focus on building links to the home page or individual pages on the subdomain? As long as each page on the subdomain links back to the home page it should pass link juice back to the home page shouldn't it? Thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | SamCUK0 -
Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Hello, in on page report card , for a kyeword: armadi portafucili blindati URL: http://www.bighunter.net/shop/searchresult.seam?codiceSettoreSel=CACCIA&codiceCategoriaSel=Armadi Blindati&codiceSottoCategoriaSel=Linea Legno DeLuxe&codiceMarcaSel=SILMEC i have a Critical Factor that don't undestand. It 's not ok "appropiate Use of Rel Canoncal, but in my page i have <link href="http://www.bighunter.net/shop/searchresult.seam?codiceSettoreSel=CACCIA&codiceCategoriaSel=Armadi Blindati&codiceSottoCategoriaSel=Linea Legno DeLuxe&codiceMarcaSel=SILMEC" rel="canonical"> and the link is the same of the url . I don't undestand where is the problem . Who can help me? Best Regards Luca
On-Page Optimization | | lbecarelli0 -
Good Internal Site Structure Idea?
Hello SEOMoz, After reading a bunch of your Site Structure articles, I've decided to make ours more flat. There are numerous pages on our site which are linked to directly from our homepage, wasting mysterious amounts of Link Juice every day. I want to remove most of these links so that the Fewer, and now more heavily weighted, Homepage Links will be more powerful... but I am worried that the pages which I am knocking down to the 3rd tier level already have high rank and are distributing this Juice to other pages. The problem is that 3 of these 9 pages are great for assisting our sales team, so I cannot take those 2 links off of the homepage...so I will be forced to Nofollow them instead. I am worried this is cutting down the number of pages on the site, also cutting out content which was previously indexed. Is this whole thing a good idea at all? And should I just leave those 2 pages alone because I can't remove the link? I'm thinking maybe I should rel=canonical it back to the homepage? I am ultimately trying to rank the homepage for the keyword "POS Software" and this is my on-site strategy for it. Maybe adding a link from those 2 pages that say "POS Software" back to the homepage is the best bet in this scenario? I am trying to learn the absolute best thing to do instead of guessing. Thanks! Derek
On-Page Optimization | | DerekM880 -
Canonical URL problem
On page analysis wanted me to add a canonical url tag. However I added then re ran the on page analysis and it came up with an error. What is the proper way to add a canonical url tag in the head of an index page? ie. add a canonical tag to www.hompeage.com/index.html would it be ? Or should I ignore this for a home page? Because I add it then run the analysis again and get this? Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://www.ensoplastics.com/index.html"</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.</dd> <dd>So do I add it or not? If I don't I get a lower page rating if I take it off I get a higher page rating with room for improvement. </dd> </dl>
On-Page Optimization | | ENSO0 -
Setting up a domain for a future site
Hi there, That may be a bit of a silly question to ask, but we've setup a new domain for an existing site. While the site is in the making, the site owners wants to already start promoting the new URL on stationeries etc. Hence, we need to setup the new URL so that it forwards to the site, but so that Google doesn't give it the history of a secondary (less important) domain. What is the best way to do this? Currently we've put in a 301 redirect, but will that bear no future consequences on the SEO of the site, when the site is moved to this new domain, and the old domain is 301 redirected. Thanks, SEOeclipse
On-Page Optimization | | Bozboz0 -
Rel="canonical"
Can you tell me if we've implemented rel="canonical" properly? We want this to be our primary: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- while this would be duplicate and refer robots back to the URL above: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6054284 We've added the following to both pages: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- "/> Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | jonesatl0