How rel=canonical works with index, noindex ?
-
Hello all,
I had always wondered how the index,noindex affects to the canonical. And also if the canonical post should be included in the sitemap or not.
I posted this
http://www.comparativadebancos.co...
and with a rel=canonical to this that was published at the beginning of the month
http://www.comparativadebancos.co...
but then I have the first one in google
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f...
May be this is evident for you but, what is really doing the canonical? If I publish something with the canonical pointing to another page, will it still be indexed by google but with no penalty for duplicate content? Or the usual behaviour should have been to havent indexed the first post but just the second one?
Should I also place a noindex in the first post in addition to the canonical?
What am I missing here?
thanks
-
Antonio,
I came into this question a little late so I'm not sure how it was back when you asked it, but right now the problem I see is that the page that does exist ( http://www.comparativadebancos.com/mejores-depositos-bancarios-de-marzo-de-2011/ ) has a rel canonical tag pointing to the page that doesn't exist ( http://www.comparativadebancos.com/depositos/marzo/ ), which returns a 404 response code.
I think right now the best thing you can do would be to change the rel canonical tag on /mejores-depositos-bancarios-de-marzo-de-2011/ to be http://www.comparativadebancos.com/mejores-depositos-bancarios-de-marzo-de-2011/ .
-
I im saying that it is important to Google to tell them more what you want to use as your content without possible parameter "/" "www" adding a duplicate content penalty to your website.
-
Hi,
I agree that it will not help you to too much with stolen content. Unless Google has indexed you 1st they would probably give you 1st rights to the disputed content. The reason I believe you are getting with such good results on Google a non-indexed URL or what should be nonindexed is Google indexes everything regardless and from what Matt Cutts said "According to Google, the canonical link element is not considered to be a directive, but a hint that the web crawler will "honor strongly" "
my belief is Google is throwing more honor to dealing with the canonical.
I hope I was of some help.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zickell
-
Blueprint, as far as I understand it can't really be used to prevent people stealing your content because you need to have to similar versions and place the tag pointing to the one that is of lesser value or that you don't want to come up in place of the original. Or are you saying if you find some of your content elsewhere offsite you can place a canonical link to it, and this will tell the spiders it is your content rather than theres?
Antonio, if you have placed the tag on the newer page pointing to the older page you are telling the spiders that the newer page is the preferred/more original content.
-
I would say that rel=canonical is one of the single most vital parts of a website no matter how it's Written or hosted all must be set up to appropriately take traffic and simply tell Google I'm not trying to duplicate my content here is my <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/" /> and that way if anyone does haven't come across your content and try to make it their own they will be the ones penalized for stealing it not you. Always put this tag in the page that you have created and the one that you want Google to understand is your copy of your website content here is some info from Matt Cutts at Google as well as Wikipedia hope I am of help
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/rel-canonical-html-head/
A canonical link element is an HTML element that helps webmasters prevent duplicate content issues by specifying the "canonical", or "preferred", version of a web page<sup id="cite_ref-googleblog_0-0" class="reference">[1]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3]</sup> as part of search engine optimization.
Duplicate content issues occur when the same content is accessible from multiple URLs.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4]</sup> For example, <tt>http://www.example.com/page.html</tt> would be considered by search engines to be an entirely different page to<tt>http://www.example.com/page.html?parameter=1</tt>, even though both URLs return the same content. Another example is essentially the same (tabular) content, but sorted differently.
In February 2009, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft announced support for the canonical link element, which can be inserted into the section of a web page, to allow webmasters to prevent these issues.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup> The canonical link element helps webmasters make clear to the search engines which page should be credited as the original.
According to Google, the canonical link element is not considered to be a directive, but a hint that the web crawler will "honor strongly".<sup id="cite_ref-googleblog_0-1" class="reference">[1]</sup>
While the canonical link element has its benefits, Matt Cutts, who is the head of Google's webspam team, has claimed that the search engine prefers the use of 301 redirects. Cutts claims the preference for redirects is because Google's spiders can choose to ignore a canonical link element if they feel it is more beneficial to do so.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup>
[edit]Examples of the
canonical
link element<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/" />
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/page.html" />
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/directory/page.html" /> ```
-
you should give it time to settle down in the SERPS ... the results are muddy for a while but your canonicals will eventually show up if they have been implemented correctly.
-
I have already done it but my question come after this one
Where Rand suggest me to do the canonical thing I am explaining here. So my doubt is why it is indexing the new post better than the old one and how this is supposed to work.
From my understanding and also from your link, if I use rel=canonical is the "canonical" url the one that has to be indexed and not the one with "rel=canonical" but it has not been my case and now I have both indexed...
Any suggestion?
-
Is it the opposite. The new one has a rel=canonical to the old one because it was written with the same content that the old one but then it appears in the index.
Then the new one has been indexed and I thought it wasnt going to be indexed. But at the same time it ranks much higger than the old one...
-
According to Google a rel=canonical is just a hint 9although they say they strongly honour it) - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html. This might explain why your old page is still showing up int he results.
Has your new page been indexed yet?
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
-
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Rel Canonical for Exact Same Copy?
I've read about using rel canonical tags for product pages like "blue shorts" vs "red shorts" but if I have two pages with the exact same copy - different URL's - but same copy, can I use a rel canonical tag and be okay for duplicate content purposes? (There is is reason the page is exactly the same, at least for the time being, so I'm just focusing on how not to be get penalized as opposed to rewriting it at the moment). Thanks, Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
If Google's index contains multiple URLs for my homepage, does that mean the canonical tag is not working?
I have a site which is using canonical tags on all pages, however not all duplicate versions of the homepage are 301'd due to a limitation in the hosting platform. So some site visitors get www.example.com/default.aspx while others just get www.example.com. I can see the correct canonical tag on the source code of both versions of this homepage, but when I search Google for the specific URL "www.example.com/default.aspx" I see that they've indexed that specific URL as well as the "clean" one. Is this a concern... shouldn't Google only show me the clean URL?
Technical SEO | | JMagary0 -
Removing indexed website
I had a .in TLD version of my .com website floated for about 15 days, which was a duplicate copy of .com website. I did not wish to use the .in further for SEO duplication reasons and had let the .in domain expire on 26th April. But still now when I search from my website the .in version also shows up in results and even in google webmaster it shows the the website with maximum (190) number of links to my .com website. I am sure this is hurting the ranking of my .com website. How can the .in website be removed from googles indexing and search results. Given that is has expired also. thanks
Technical SEO | | geekwik0 -
Website is not indexed in Google
Hi Guys, I have a problem with a website from a customer. His website is not indexed in Google (except for the homepage). I could not find anything that can possibly be the cause. I already checked the robots.txt, sitemap, and plugins on the website. In the HTML code i also couldn't find anything which makes indexing harder than usual. This is the website i am talking about: http://www.xxxx.nl/ (Dutch) The only thing that i am guessing now is the Google sandbox, but even that is quite unlikely. I hope you guys discover something i could not find! Thanks in advance 🙂
Technical SEO | | B.Great0 -
Single URL not indexed
Hi everyone! Some days ago, I noticed that one of our URLs (http://www.access.de/karriereplanung/webinare) is no longer in the Google index. We never had any form of penalty, link warning etc. Our traffic by Google is constantly growing every month. This single page does not have an external link pointing to it - only internal links. The page has been indexed all the time. The HTTP status code is 200, there is no noindex or something in the code. I submitted the URL on GWMT to let Google send it to the index. It was crawled successfully by Google, sent to the index 5 days ago - nothing happened, still not indexed. Do you have any suggestions why this page is no longer indexed? It is well linked internally and one click away from the home page. There is still the PR of 5 showing, I always thought that pages with PR are indexed.......
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Querystring params, rel canonical and SEO
I know ideally you should have as clean as possible url structures for optimal SEO. Our current site contains clean urls with very minimal use of query string params. There is a strong push, for business purposes to include click tracking on our site which will append a query string param to a large percentage of our internal links. Currently: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/ Will change to: http://www.oursite.com/section/content/?tg=zzzzwww We currently use rel canonical on all pages to properly define the true url in order to remove any possible duplicate content issues. Given we are already using rel canonical, if we implement the query string click tracking, will this negatively impact our SEO? If so, by how much? Could we run into duplicate content issues? We get crawled by Google a lot (very big site) and very large percent of our traffic is from Google, but there is a strong business need for this information so trying to weigh pros/cons.
Technical SEO | | NicB10 -
No index directory pages?
All, I have a site built on WordPress with directory software (edirectory) on the backend that houses a directory of members. The Wordpress portion of the site is full of content and drives traffic through to the directory. Like most directories, the results pages are thin on content and mainly contain links to member profiles. Is it best to simply no index the search results for the directory portion of the site?
Technical SEO | | JSOC0