Is your live site supposed to have rel canonical tags?
-
I recently started working for a company and got them to use Moz and I have found that our secure site and our live sites are creating "duplicate content" according to the Crawl Diagnostics feature. On our secure site we have rel canonical tags pointing to our live site. I'm not super familiar with rel canonical tags, but our developer says we're doing the right thing. Would love any insight you guys may have if this is actually duplicate content or not. Thanks so much!
-
Agree with Dave's comments. 1) Get the syntax updated on your canonical links at a minimum. 2) Yes your canonical solution will "work", but it is not best practice. This "solution" is really a last resort. I would try and push to move away from using canonicals this way. You optimally want 1 URL.
Just to add some color, a great / classic video on this was made by Matt Cutts. He gives all kinds of examples where you could have duplicate URLs, i.e. www vs non www subdomain, sorting parameters added onto the URL, different file extensions, capitalization changes, etc. He then gives 3 options to fix them.
-
Best practice: Fix your site where you only have one URL per content item and link to it consistently (Best solution)
-
Use 301 redirects to consolidate to one URL (Next best solution)
-
Use a canonical link, if you cannot do 1 or 2. (Last resort)
Note that Matt says that they treat a canonical as a strong suggestion (it is treated similar to a 301), but they do not always have to follow it. He repeatedly says, use the first two options, and would NOT recommend a canonical as your best or first option.
My favorite quote is at 2:24 in the video, "Developers keep SEOs in business"
What your developer may notice is that Matt does say that using a canonical link for consolidating http and https will work. No one here would say that it would not, it is just not optimal. Sure, you can use a pair of scissors to cut your lawn, "it will work". It doesn't mean it's the best idea. I would think any developer worth his/her salt would want to have "clean code" and having duplicate URLs is not "clean" by SEO standards
Ok, so now you need to go back to the developer or your manager with an argument that is stronger than just, "Well, some random dude on the Moz forum said that Matt Cutt's from Google said it was preferred not to use a canonical link even though it would work". I would never want to leave you in such a position. Here is what will/can happen over time if you stay with your current setup.
-
Report consolidation issues. When you look at GA for traffic or OSE for links, any spidering tool for technical issues, social sharing counts, you now have split data for any given page potentially. Sure there are ways around this, but now you have to spend all your time "fixing" reports that should not be broken to start with. Trust me, this will come back to bite you on the bum and will cripple your efforts to show the efficacy of your SEO work. Now who really wants that?
-
Link juice consolidation issues. With any redirect - you lose a bit of link juice. If you have links to both sets of URLs, any single page is not getting as much credit as it should.
-
Down the line 301 redirect bloat. If you ever change anything and need to setup a 301 redirect, now you have to setup 2 of them and having too many 301s can negatively impact server performance.
One last thing. If you can get the URLs consolidated into one using 301s etc. Go with the https That is the way that we are headed with the web and so you might as well get going in that direction.
Good luck!
-
-
I really appreciate the response and the added information. I guess we will see if anyone else responds!
-
I'd be interested in hearing what someone else has to say about the way the canonicals are coded. You're doing yours similar to the way I do DNS Prefetching with the double slash to start the URL:
It works fine with prefetching as all the browser needs to do is find the IP of the domain but I'm not sure here how it'll handle sub-directories including www and I hate variables even when they're "it should work". The more common way to canonicalize your secured page would be:
/>
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any direct experience with this but at the core of technical SEO issues I always lean to "most common usage" and "how Google shows it in their examples" just to make sure there is minimal chance of hiccups or issues.
That aside though, the developer is right though I'd always still prefer to just see the pages at a single URL. Since that can't be done however ... canonicals are the way to go.
-
That is correct! Here is an example of two URL's of what i'm talking about:
http://www.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinship
https://agrouptt4.secure2.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinshipDoes this help clarify my question? I hope so!
-
I'm not sure I entirely understand the scenario so let me note how I'm hearing it to make sure my understanding is correct to put the answer into context. Please do let me know if my understanding of the scenario is wrong as that may well change my thoughts on it.
You note that your secure site and live site are creating duplicate content. Of course a secure site can be live but I'm taking this to mean you have an area behind a login. That it's creating duplicate content is making me think that a lot of the core information is the same and I'm guessing many of the same pages.
If this is all correct and you can't put the duplicated pages onto one URL only then the canonicals are the way to go and your developer is correct.
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
-
Syntax for canonical tag for a default page in a sub directory (not subdomain) of a web site?
I'm getting two "no canonical tag" errors for the default page of a sub-directory default page (www and root) - again NOT a subdomain. Since the page is not the root of its own site, I tagged it as -- I have tried without the default.asp, but the error remains. Been doing this for 24 years and don't remember running across this before.
Moz Pro | | dcmike0 -
Duplicate titles reported with canonical
Hi Mozzers, In the reports it is saying that I have some duplicate content and titles even though there is a canonical tag on them, is anyone else getting this?
Moz Pro | | KarlBantleman0 -
I am trying to find inbound links for one of my site urls. My question is does SEOMoz able to track all internal links as the Open Site Explorer shows 0 internal links?
It shows 0 internal links when I am pretty sure we have multiple internal links.Should we use absolute urls or relative urls for internal links?
Moz Pro | | SulekhaUSLLC0 -
I have a Rel Canonical "notice" in my Crawl Diagnostics report. I'm presuming that means that the spider has detected a rel canonical tag and it is working as opposed to warning about an issue, is this correct?
I know this seems like a really dumb question but the site I'm working on is a BigCommerce one and I've been concerned about canonicalisation issues prior to receiving this report (I'm a SEOmoz pro newbie also!) and I just want to be clear I am reading this notice correctly. I presume this means that the site crawl has detected the rel canonical tag on these pages and it is working correctly. Is this correct?? Any input is much appreciated. Thanks
Moz Pro | | seanpearse0 -
Open Site Explorer Not Working on 99% of Sites
I'm trying to use Open Site Explorer, but whenever I try to I get the error message "Ouch! It Looks Like Something Went South". Interestingly, I don't have this problem when entering a very popular site like google.com, yahoo.com, bbc.co.uk. Is there a problem with the tool at the moment, or something wrong on my end?
Moz Pro | | EssexGirl1 -
Duplicate content & canonicals
Hi, Working on a website for a company that works in different european countries. The setup is like this: www.website.eu/nl
Moz Pro | | nvs.nim
www.website.eu/be
www.website.eu/fr
... You see that every country has it's own subdir, but NL & BE share the same language, dutch... The copywriter wrote some unique content for NL and for BE, but it isn't possible to write unique for every product detail page because it's pretty technical stuff that goes into those pages. Now we want to add canonical tags to those identical product pages. Do we point the canonical on the /be products to /nl products or visa versa? Other question regarding SEOmoz: If we add canonical tags to x-pages, do they still appear in the Crawl Errors "duplicate page content", or do we have to do our own math and just do "duplicate page content" minus "Rel canonical" ?0 -
Handling long URLs and overly-dynamic URLs on eCommerce site
Hello Forum, I've been optimizing an eCommerce site and our SEOmoz crawls are favorable for the most part, except for long URLs and overly-dynamic URLs. These issues stem from two URL types: Layered navigation (faceted search) and non-Google internal search results. I outline the issues for each below. We use an SEO-friendly URL structure for our product category pages, but once bots start "clicking" our layered navigation options, all the parameters are appended to our SEO-friendly urls, causing the SEOmoz crawl warnings. Layered Navigation :
Moz Pro | | pano
SEO-Friendly Category Page: oursite.com/shop/meditation-cushions.html Effects of layered navigation: oursite.com/shop/meditation-cushions.html?bolster_material_quality=414&bolsters_appearance=206&color=12&dir=asc&height=291&order=name As you can see the parameters include product attributes and page sorts. I should note that all pages generated by these parameters use the element to point back to the SEO-friendly URL We have also set up Google's Webmaster Tools to handle these parameters. Internal Search Function:
Our URLs start off simple: oursite.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=brown. Then the bot clicks all the layered navigation options, yielding oursite.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?appearance=54&cat=67&clothing_material=83&color=12&product_color=559&q=brown. Also, all search results are set to noindex,follow. My question is: Should we worry about these overly-dynamic and long ULR warnings? We have set up canonical elements, "noindex,follow" solutions, and configured Webmaster Tools to handle our parameters. If these are a concern, how would you resolve these issues?0 -
Missing back links in Open Site Explorer?
I'm looking at the Open Site Explorer for my site, and it shows 9 links to my site, all from 2 domains (showing all links from all pages and for both www and not www version of my domain name). But I know for sure that there are other sites linking to my site. Are they not there because they are not important or because the links have not been crawled yet?
Moz Pro | | jsoldi0