Rel-canonical tag confusion
-
I had our web development company implement the rel-canonical tag on all pages of our website to get rid of the duplicate content months ago. However, when I use the On Page optimizer tool (in previous version) it would tell me I'm not using the rel-canonical tag correctly on the page I was grading and when I untagged use rel-canonical tag in our CMS (which was pointing to the correct page) my grade would go to an A. Now with the new version it says I'm using it wrong either way, when I have the tag used in my CMS and everything else is good I have a B, but one I click to not use Rel-canonical tag I have a C. Both ways it shows up in On-page tool without a check in Apprpriate Use of Rel Canonical.
I've attached pictures. In C version it says - Canonical URL "/info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
In B version: Canonical URL "/info/solutions/"
What am I doing wrong and how do i fix this? Because ALL of my grades have dropped to Bs and Cs.
Thanks!
iklEHOjJLZE4966 [URL]]([URL=http://imgur.com/5BYcV][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5BYcV.jpg[/IMG][/URL]) 5BYcV
-
The tag should work fine with the partial URL.
If you are still concerned about the warning, try adding the base href tag within the of your page. It would be as follows:
<base href="http://www.aircycle.com/">
This tag explicitly specifies the base URL to which all partial URLs are built upon for a given page. Try adding this tag to just the one page, then running the report again to see if that resolves the issue. If it does, then you know what change the tool is requesting.
To be clear, the canonical tag you are using should be fine for search engines assuming there is no other issue. This may be a specific issue with the tool.
Since testing the base href tag, and the full URL are relatively quick and easy to do, my suggestion is to spend 10 minutes performing these tests to see the results. If the tests work, then you can contact the SEOmoz help desk and report your findings as an issue with the tool. It could be a bug or limitation with the tool.
-
So does the tag still work with the partial URL or no? It worked before, so I'm not sure what the ordeal is now but that the new CMS is causing SEOmoz some difficulty reading this.
I'd have to have my web development company fix it to the full URL.
-
I am going to take my best guess, which would need to be tested.
The tool is seeing a partial URL and it does not like it. The best way to confirm the issue is add the complete URL and then test the page. If it passes, then I am correct.
<link href='http://www.aircycle.com/info/solutions/' rel='canonical' />
-
the missing one just shows the Canonical url listing the rest of the URL twice.
B version: "/info/solutions/"
c version: "/Info/solutions/" and "/info/solutions/"
-
-
The first and third images appear the same to me, and the second image is a broken link.
"/info/solutions/" is not a complete URL. It can't be indexed.
Can you possibly share the URL to an example of a web page with this issue?
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
-
Page with "Missing Title Tag" isn't a page
Hello, I am going through the various errors that the Moz Pro Crawl report and some non-existent pages keep coming up in the report. For example, one error category is "Missing Title Tag" with one page identified. But this page http://www.immigroup.com/news/“http%3A/crs.yorku.ca”?page=2 isn't real. It would have been a 404 were there not a redirect for everything that is /news/gobbledygook to /news. So my question is: when moz (or GA for that matter) identifies these pages as "real" and having errors, do I need to take this seriously? And what do I do about it? Thanks! George
Moz Pro | | canadageorge0 -
Do I need to set the country in Webmaster Tools even if I am set to apply the hreflang tag to our different country pages?
We are global brand that will be migrating to a new platform in the next few months. As such, this will allow us to fix our current SEO issues. We are planning on using geo-targeted subfolders instead of country code top level domains primarily because of resource limitations. My question is - do I need to set the country in Webmaster Tools even though I am already going to tell Google that certain pages are targeted towards a specific country?
Moz Pro | | marshseo0 -
Rel Canonical
Just had my site crawled by Moz Pro for the 2nd time and its flagged up 925 Rel Canonical issues. Most of the pages are similar but with different content. Please can someone tell me what i need to do to sort this issue...? www.indigocarhire.co.uk Thanks
Moz Pro | | RGOnline0 -
Adding canonical still returns duplicate pages
According to SEOmoz, several of my campaigns show that I have duplicate pages (SEOmoz Errors). Upon reading more about how to resolve the issue, I followed SEOmoz's suggestion to add rel='canonical' <links>to each page. After the next SEOmoz crawl, the number of SEOmoz Errors related to duplicate pages remained the same and the number of SEOmoz notices shot up indicating that it recognized that I added rel='canonical'.</links> I'm still puzzled as to why the SEOmoz errors did not go down with respect to duplicate page errors after I added rel='canonical', especially since SEOmoz noticed that I added them. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks,
Moz Pro | | MOZ2
Scott.0 -
Canonical URLs for Search Parameters
Hi Guys Our seomoz campaign report is returning a lot or Rel Canonical issues similar to this for each page. The non / version redirects to the / version but how do I get the ones with search parameters ie '?datefrom&nights' to redirect. http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78
Moz Pro | | JohnTulley
http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78/
http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78/?datefrom&nights
http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78/?datefrom=&nights= Any help would be welcome, thanks0 -
Why do I keep getting "more than one canonical URL tag" on-page factor when, in fact, there is always only one?
The following are pages that SEOMOZ says have "more than one canonical URL tag" but they all have only one. Can someone help me understand this?http://www.lasercenterny.com/Laser-Hair-Removal-Binghamton/tabid/1950/Default.aspxhttp://www.lasercenterny.com/Hair-Removal-Binghamton-NY/tabid/1949/Default.aspxhttp://www.lasercenterny.com/Hair-Removal-Binghamton/tabid/1948/Default.aspx
Moz Pro | | SmartWebPros0 -
Help with duplicate title tags?
I was looking in Google webmaster tools and it says I have 95 duplicate title tags for my site Noah's Dad. When I look through the list it appears the pages with duplicate title tags are some of my category pages, archive pages, and some author pages... Not sure if you guys can use some of the tools to see what is actually showing up duplicate or not, and if you need more info just let me know. But I wanted to see if this is something I should be concerned with? Should WMT also say 0 in duplicate content? It seems like when I started my blog I was told no to be conceded with this sort of stuff in gwmt. Anyways...I just wanted to see what you guys think. (By the way, is there any way to tell what this duplicate content is having (or has had) on my SERP results? Thanks.
Moz Pro | | NoahsDad0 -
Do crawl reports see canonical tags?
Greetings, I just redesigned my site, www.funderstanding.com, and have the old site pointing to the new site via canonical URLs. I had a new crawl test run and it showed a large amount of duplicate content. Does the SEO Moz crawl tool validate canonical urls and adjusts the duplicate content count or is this note considered? FYI, I sent from no duplicate content to having 865 errors since the redesign went up so that seems suspicious. I would think though that assuming the canonical tag were used properly, and I hope it is?, that this would not be a problem?? All help with this is most appreciated. Eric
Moz Pro | | Ericc220