Rel=canonical Query
-
Hello Everyone,
We have just launched our new ecommerce site for flooring in the UK.
I have run through the first crawl and there are 549 instances of rel=canonical including the homepage?
Is this a major issue in any way, i have never had to tackle it before and i would appreciate any advice that could be offered on the subject.
Many Thanks
Andrew
-
Andrew
I would essentially suggest to use the crawl report from SEOMoz as a starting point and see which ones translate into real issues and then the effort/reward/prioritize based on time and resources available as well as the importance of that change.
@Maximise is right-on, you can ignore the canonical "warnings". They are more like an FYI.
-
No problem Andrew.
It depends where in the basket area they are. Keep in mind that the search engines won't submit forms or get into any secure areas so those pages would not be worth changing.
-
Many Thanks for your help Maximise,
Yes that is what i was referring to.
That puts my mind at ease a bit, I'm now going to crack on resolving the 75 critical errors and silly mistakes which have also been found, duplicate page titles etc although some of these are in the basket area, are they worth changing?
Kind Regards
Andrew
-
Hi Andrew,
Are you referring to the rel=canonical under the notices section? If so then this is not a problem, it's just showing that there are canonical tags implemented for these pages. You don't need to change anything.
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
-
301 to canonical
I'm doing some work on a website, they have a very popular product search where you enter a specific part code (6 digits) and it takes you to the product. So for example Search: 123456 Page redirected to domain.com/product/123456 With a canonical of domain.com/product/this-is-the-product-title Would it be beneficial to redirect from /product/123456 to /product/this-is-the-product-title Google seems to be indexing both versions. For some of these products a reasonable amount of links are built.
On-Page Optimization | | ThomasHarvey0 -
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 -
Is this canonical issue?
WP site has automated canonical on domain.com/ by Yoast plugin but there is URL (/?page=kontaktine-forma) where same domaim.com/ canonical tag was put on. I made 301 redirect to main page. Is this a good practice?
On-Page Optimization | | OVJ0 -
Pagination with parameter and rel prev rel next
Hi there: I have a doubt about how using the pagination and rel prev | rel next, I will try to sum up this example of pagination: the page number 1 is SEO friendly in order to index it, It also gets metarobots: index, follow. The other ones (pagination), instead, have noindex, follow. In fact, these URLs are not SEO friendly because of they have the parameter "?" to set up pagination, so for this reason, in the past, It has been decided not to index them. Would you suggest also to use rel="prev" rel="next" in this situation? Or would it be better to set up the others ones (pagination) in "SEO friendly" and then, to set up the rel prev | rel next? Thanks a lot in advance for helping 🙂 Greetings Francesca
On-Page Optimization | | Red_educativa0 -
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing?
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing? I had "twin" domains so I redirected my .com to www..com and now I have a lot of Rel Canonical Links.
On-Page Optimization | | Mike.Bean0 -
2 canonical tags on the same page
When using the 'on-page optimizer' tool, I continue to get the same recommendation on every page to only use 1 canonical tag on the page. I'm not sure why there are 2 tags on each page in the first place so I don't know how to remove the one that's not needed. Our site is on a WP blog and a sample page to view the source code would be: http://www.shilohstreet.com/blog/is-flipping-houses-smart-real-estate-investing.html Does anyone know why this is happening, how to fix it and/or if I should even be concerned with it? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | shilohstreet0 -
Canonical tag for home page
This question was asked before but I didn't see a clear answer to it. If I've got a site that has as it's home page: http://www.mysite.com/, and there are many references within the site back to the home page that point to /index.php, should I include a canonical tag in the index.php page like this: to avoid a duplicate content issue, and to have all juice from both links combined into one?
On-Page Optimization | | wcksmith0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0