Canonical tags
-
In previous we had issues with capital letters in page urls. So we made a 301 redirection to lower case page url. But I read there that it's not good idea to use 301 redirection, better solution for that canonical tag. So we placed canonical url tak to lower case page url... So after week, in google webmaster tools I see around 60k os dublicate pages. Why google don't see canonical tag?
Thank you
-
**google bot crawled our new pages yesterday, canonical tag was placed maybe week ago. **
The canonical tag which is providing the adjustment is the one on the old page, not the new one. In order to fully update Google needs to crawl both the old and new pages.
So it should see this tag, but looks like they ignore this tag.
That is not true. Your understanding of how the process works is not complete. You are not using the best solution and you are expecting results way too fast.
301 redirection is not good idea as we loose ~10% of link juice, that's why it's recommended to use canonical.
You lose a small amount of link juice when performing a redirect. That amount is estimated as between 1 and 10%.
You lose the same amount when using a canonical tag.
All of the above information is correct, but I sense you are convinced otherwise so perhaps this video from Matt Cutts will change your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA
-
google bot crawled our new pages yesterday, canonical tag was placed maybe week ago. So it should see this tag, but looks like they ignore this tag. We do not block urls in robots.txt. 301 redirection is not good idea as we loose ~10% of link juice, that's why it's recommended to use canonical.
-
Personally, I'd try to eradicate the problem at the root. Make sure your CMS does not generate any URLs in upper case letters at all, and you'll have the best solution for this problem!
-
I am not sure where you got the idea the canonical tag would be a better solution. Faced with the situation you shared, I would use the 301 redirect.
A canonical tag is best when you need to maintain more then one version of a URL. For example, if you sell radio controlled cars on your site it may be a good idea to list it under /toys/radio-controlled-car and also under gifts/radio-controlled-car. One of those pages would be the primary page which the other would be duplicate content. You can use a canonical tag to let search engines know which is the primary page.
In your case, there is no reason to maintain the old page with the upper-case URL. Therefore I would use a 301 redirect and only offer the new page on your site.
So after week, in google webmaster tools I see around 60k os dublicate pages. Why google don't see canonical tag?
For starters, expect it to take a month for Google to see all the pages of a large site. Google will crawl a small percentage of your site each day.
There could be various issues with your site which can affect Google's ability to see the change. For example, if you block the pages with robots.txt, Google would not see the canonical tag.
My recommendation would be to implement the 301 redirect then submit an updated sitemap to Google. The next step is to wait 30 days.
-
Google does seem to take a while with canonical tags. However, it sounds like a 301 might be the better choice in these circumstances.
When choosing between 301 & canonical, the issue for me is the user experience. If the 2 URLs show different content and the user would expect to be able to find either set then I'd go with canonical. Otherwise it is 301. If you are just trying to stop issues with capitalisation in URLs then really it should be a 301.
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
-
Query string parameters and canonical links
Hello everyone, My site uses query string parameters in a few places to manage tasks like pagination of lists. Eg: http://www.example.com/destinations/somewhere?page=2 I have set a canonical link with the href of the page without the query string but still getting thousands of duplicate title/meta description reports from these pages. Is there something I can do to change this? Do search engines actually penalise for use of query string parameters like this? They seem so commonplace, even for sites which use an absolute URI with no query string to serve content. Thanks 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | JHWXS0 -
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
Colons in title tag?
Does Google view the colon as a keyword separator like it does with the pipe (|) character? Currently, our site automatically constructs the title tag based on the page name given by the user. Long ago, we started using the colon character to visually separate the brand & model of the product from the size, and as a result, all of our title tags have been constructed this way. This was done more to make it easier to read for humans than for search engines. My question is - should I consider getting rid of the colon from our title tags? To give more info, our website sells tires. So, for any given model of tire, there might be 25-100 different individual sizes. The tags are constructed as follows: (brand)(model) : (size). Here's an example from our site: GENERAL ALTIMAX ARCTIC : 225/45R17 91Q The brand is General Tire, the model is the Altimax Arctic and the size is 225/45R17 91Q Since this entire string really constitutes the full product name, should I remove the colon so that Google views it that way? Or, since I have used a colon instead of a pipe, will Google simply ignore it and treat the entire string as one keyword phrase?
On-Page Optimization | | kcourtem0 -
Can rel="canonical" refer to another website page?
I want to republish the post from another website with their permission and want to abide by Google guidelines. Google guidelines is clear when you are using the same content at different parts of the same site however not when using it on another site in a legitimate way. Is there some way to use rel="canonical" refer to another website page of you are reproducing the content from same page?
On-Page Optimization | | h1seo0 -
Title tags for deep pages
Just pondering what is current best practice for Title tags of pages buried deep within my website? Say I have a page about 'Cheese's of the world' and from that page there is a page about 'Cheshire Cheese' how would you suggest to structure title tags Would for example this be ok - Cheshire Cheese | Cheese's of the World | Brand name Or is this better - Cheshire Cheese | Brand name Just wondering as I'm redesigning my site currently and looking at everything! Ted PS - I like cheese 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | Jon-C0 -
Canonical Notice
I am curious why I receive this canonical notice even though there is a canonical for this homepage. Nq3fD.jpg
On-Page Optimization | | paumer800 -
Tags in wordpress -Important?
Hello, I use the Wordpress plataform in my blog. What I want to ask is, how important is the tag field in the posts area. Since I have the title tag and meta description how important is that field? Its really a question that was in my mind since I start doing SEO 😛 Tks in advance guys 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | PedroM0 -
Should I include location in title tag to rank higher in local search
I'm working on a site for a small guest house (http://www.tommysonthebeach.com). I have created a Google Place page (Bing and Yahoo Local) as well and I have the address in the footer on every page. I have the location (Indian Rocks Beach) at the beginning of most titles tags because that is how people tend to search, e.g. "Indian Rocks Beach vacation rental." In theory I would think that I don't need location in the title tag because Google knows the location, and I could use the real estate for other keywords suchs as "pet friendly" or "beach hotel," etc. But when I look at the SERPS, those ranking highly all seem to have the location at the beginning of the title tag. Thanks. P.S. The site is currently not showing up in Google local search apparently because Google thinks it's a vacation rental agency, which are not allowed in local search. I'm trying to get that fixed.
On-Page Optimization | | bvalentine0