Rel Canonical Crawl Notices
-
Hello,
Within the Moz report from the crawl of my site, it shows that I had 89 Rel Canonical notices. I noticed that all the pages on my site have a rel canonical tag back to the same page the tag is on. Specific example from my site is as follows: http://www.automation-intl.com/resistance-welding-equipment has a Rel Canonical tag <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.automation-intl.com/resistance-welding-equipment" />. Is this self reference harmless and if so why does it create a notice in the crawl?
Thanks in advance.
-
Thanks Martijn
-
Just some more information about canonical tags, Matt Cutts has said that self-referring canonical tags like the one you described won't hurt your site. However, Bing said that it could negatively impact rankings, and to not put a tag if it lists its own url. If you are getting the majority of traffic from people using Bing (although it's not likely), you might want to consider removing the canonical tag.
Like Martijn said though, canonical tags are fine when used correctly.
-
Hi Eric,
Your canonical URL on this page is totally OK like this, as Moz also mentions in the report about the rel canonicals it's just a notice so not a warning or an error. They just give you a notice that this page is containing a canonical tag to make sure you're aware of this!
Hope this answers your question!
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
-
Strange Crawl Report
Hey Moz Squad, So I have kind of strange case. My website locksmithplusinc.com has been around for a couple years. I have had all sorts of pages and blogs that have maybe ranked for a certain location a longtime ago and got deleted so I could speed up the site and consolidate my efforts. I said that because I think that might be part of the problem. When I was crawl reporting my site just three weeks ago on moz I had over 23 crawl report issues. Duplicate pages, missing meta tags the regular stuff. But now all of a sudden when I crawl report on MOZ it comes up with Zero issues. So I did another crawl On google analytic and this is what came up. SO im very confused because none of these url's are even url's on my site. So maybe people are searching for this stuff and clicking on broken links that are still indexed and getting this 404 error? What do you guys think? Thank you guys so much for taking a shot at this one. siS44ug
Technical SEO | | Meier0 -
Using rel=canonical
I have a set of static pages which were created with the purpose of targeting long tail keywords. That has resulted in Domain Authority dilution to some extent. I am now in the process of creating one page which will serve the same results but only after user selects the fields in the drop-down. I am planning to use rel=cannonical on the multiple pages pointing back to the new page. Will it serve the purpose?
Technical SEO | | glitterbug0 -
When Should I Ignore the Error Crawl Report
I have a handful of pages listed in the Error Crawl Report, but the report isn't actually showing anything wrong with these pages. I am double checking the code on the site and also can't find anything. Should I just move on and ignore the Error Crawl Report for these few pages?
Technical SEO | | ChristinaRadisic0 -
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 -
Webmaster tools crawl stats
Hi I have a clients site that was having aprox 30 - 50 pages crawled regularly since site launch up until end of Jan. On the 21st Jan the crawled pages dropped significantly from this average to about 11 - 20 pages per day. This also coincided with a massive rankings drop on the 22nd which i thought was something to do with panda although it later turned out the hosts had changed the DNS and exactly a week after fixing it the rankings returned so i think that was the cause not panda. However i note that the crawl rate still hasn't returned to what it was/previous average and is still following the new average of 10-20 pages per day rather than the 30-50 pages per day. Does anyone have any ideas why this is ? I have since added a site map but hasnt increased crawl rate since A bit of further info if it helps in any way is that In the indexed status section says 48 pages ever crawled with 37 pages indexed. There are 48 pages on the site. The site map section says 37 submitted with 35 indexed. I would have thought that since dynamic site map would submit all urls Any clarity re the above much appreciated ? Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Is it a good idea to use the rel canonical tag to refer to the original source?
Sometimes we place our blog post also on a external site. In this case this post is duplicated. Via the post we link to the original source but is it also possible to use the rel canonical tag on the external site? For example: The original blogpost is published on http://www.original.com/post The same blogpost is published on http:///www.duplicate.com/post. In this case is it wise to put a rel canonical on http://www.duplicate.com/post like this: ? What do you think? Thanks for help! Robert
Technical SEO | | Searchresult0 -
Internal search : rel=canonical vs noindex vs robots.txt
Hi everyone, I have a website with a lot of internal search results pages indexed. I'm not asking if they should be indexed or not, I know they should not according to Google's guidelines. And they make a bunch of duplicated pages so I want to solve this problem. The thing is, if I noindex them, the site is gonna lose a non-negligible chunk of traffic : nearly 13% according to google analytics !!! I thought of blocking them in robots.txt. This solution would not keep them out of the index. But the pages appearing in GG SERPS would then look empty (no title, no description), thus their CTR would plummet and I would lose a bit of traffic too... The last idea I had was to use a rel=canonical tag pointing to the original search page (that is empty, without results), but it would probably have the same effect as noindexing them, wouldn't it ? (never tried so I'm not sure of this) Of course I did some research on the subject, but each of my finding recommanded one of the 3 methods only ! One even recommanded noindex+robots.txt block which is stupid because the noindex would then be useless... Is there somebody who can tell me which option is the best to keep this traffic ? Thanks a million
Technical SEO | | JohannCR0