Canonical nightmare! Help!
-
Hi all, I really hope someone can help, I'm new to Moz and think I've done something really silly.
Last night I changed some settings in Magento for how it handles Category paths and Canonicals to those that most SEO people recommend. Everything looked fine and products that had 4 URL's all seemed now to have only one.
I then tried the dropdown menu on iOS and it just didn't work (worked fine on PC). In a panic I changed the settings back, cleared cache etc...
Now I try to grade a page in Moz and I'm scoring an F on every one, critical errors everywhere! Top of the list is that it's returning HTTP code 200.
Has anyone heard of navigation that can be broken on only iOS or can anyone shed any light on how the canonical changes could have affected navigation?
Thanks, any help or suggestions really welcome.
-
Yeah, a status code of 200 is generally a good thing. Could you direct message me through the site and tell me which campaign you're seeing the errors on. I can log in and try to take a deeper look.
-
JM67,
Mike is probably on to something. 200 status is usually followed by OK which means you are good to go.
I would suspect that you may have a different issue when it comes to MOZ page rank. When you go from a good page rank to an F rank It usually means your are somehow linking the wrong Keyword to the page. So in your case check for something as simple as having "HTTPS" vs "HTTP" or www version vs non www. That makes all the difference.
Allen
-
I'd have to assume the changes in Magento broke your site because adding Re="canonical" tags wouldn't have done anything like what you're describing and with such intense speed considering you did this the other night.
Also a 200 HTTP Status is the Response Code for OK... which is what live and functioning pages should return.
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
-
80% Spam Score!! Can Any One Help?
I have a question about the Spam Score for my website .
Moz Bar | | PoppyP
I have run a Spam Score for https://www.poppyporter.co.uk
It has come back with an 80% score because there are 4 links that are apparently from my poppyporter.com domain each with a 69% spam score.
This poppyporter.com domain is parked and I have no idea why there are links from it. There are no pages there and there never have been, I've never used the poppyporter.com domain only poppyporter.co.uk.
I don't understand why there are links there and why they are making my Spam Score so high.
Will they affect my site's SEO? Do I need to worry about them? If so how do I get rid of them?
Can you help?
Thanks very much Poppy1 -
Canonical in Moz crawl report
I'm wondering if the moz bot is seeing my rel="canonical" on my pages. There are 2 notices that are bothering me: Overly Dynamic URL Rel Canonical Overly Dynamic URL - This notice is being generated by urls with query strings. On the main page I have the rel="canonical" tag in the header. So every page with the query string has the canonical tag that points to the page that should be indexed. So my question...Why the notice? Isn't this being handled properly with the canonical tag? I know I can use my robots.txt or the tool in Google search console but is it really necessary when I have the canonical on every page? Here is one of the links that has the "Overly Dynamic URL" notice, as you can see the the canonical in the header points to the page without the query string: https://www.vistex.com/services/training/traditional-classroom/registration-form/?values=true&course-title=DMP101 – Data Maintenance Pricing – Business Processes&date=March 14, 2016 Rel Canonical - Every page in my report has this notice "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical". I'm using the rel="canonical" tag on all of my pages by default. Is the report suggesting that I don't do this? Or is it suggesting that I should? Again...why the notice?
Moz Bar | | Brando160 -
On Page Grader Help
Hi There I am going through the process of using the on page grader and optimising lots of pages, it seems that the difference between getting an F and A grade is simply the title having those keywords however there are keywords that I want to grade well for without stuffing the Title tag with loads of different keywords. Would you say the on page grader is reliable given this and if not could it be optimised to consider the other factors rather then just displaying a tick to say these factors have been considered and achieved.
Moz Bar | | sharpleaddesign0 -
Suggestion for Improving the Crawl Report on Canonicals
This came up in the answer to a question I gave here http://moz.com/community/q/canonicals-in-crawling-reports#reply_222623 Wanted to post here to put it in as a suggestion on how to improve the Moz Crawl reports Currently, the report shows FALSE if there is no canonical link on a page and TRUE if there is. IF you get a TRUE response, this shows up as a warning in your report. I currently use Canonical to Self on almost all my pages to help with some indexing issues. I currently use the EXACT function in excel to create a formula to see if my canonical link matches the URL of the page (as this is what I want it to do). I can then know that the canonical is implemented properly, or if I need to manually check pages to make sure the canonical that points to another page is correct. I would like to suggest that the Moz crawl tool does this. It can show FALSE is the canonical is missing, TRUE if the canonical is present and SELF if the canonical points to the URL of the page it is on. I think for the most part this would be much more actionable information. I would even suggest that TRUE would need to be more of a high priority alert, and SELF can't do any damage, so I would leave that info in the CSV but not have that as a warning in the web interface. Thanks for listening!
Moz Bar | | CleverPhD0 -
Canonicals in crawling reports
The crawling reports gives info about several meta data missing, what about the lack of a canonical tag? This would be nice too... and images without alt tag (or empty).
Moz Bar | | KBC0 -
Moz Report-Canonical
Moz crawl reported in issues: Rel Canonical: using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which url should be seen as canonical. But we have sorted out this a long time ago. Is there a way where can I verify if the moz crawl is wrong or if we really do not specify the canonical?
Moz Bar | | Rebeca10 -
Moz reporting appropriate Canonical tag usage but no canonical tag on page !?
I take it this means that the page in question has been referenced via a different pages canonical tag but that the page in question itself does not have a self referencing canonical tag (and that it should do) cheers dan
Moz Bar | | Dan-Lawrence0
