Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.
-
Please clarify:
In the page optimization tool, seomoz recommends using the canonical url tag on the unique page itself.
Is it the same canonical url tag used when want juice to go to the original page?
Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today.
Please give example.
-
Short answer - yes.
Paul
-
Just to confirm please please as I am little confused after my On page report
If a I have a page name eg "http://www.ilovetravel/destinations/cruise/asia-river-cruises/"
do I need to add a canonical url tag to the header of my page
-
Hah! Really good point! Love it.
Stupid scrapers.
Paul
-
I totally agree with Paul.
Another thing I noticed on one of my websites: I had the canonical code in the header. Someone copied my entire page and published it to their website (with canonical tag) so the openly told the search engines that my website was the original copy of the content.
another reason why it could work
regards
Jarno
-
Probably the best concrete example of why this recommendation is valuable is when using Google Analytics campaign variables to point to landing pages.
Say your regular website page is www.mysite.com/mylanding page.html. On that page, you place the canonical tag in the header pointing back at itself.
It seems redundant until you realize that in future, you might very well be linking back to that page from a social media post or banner ad using Google Analytics tracking parameters. So the page would now be indexed under the url www.mysite.com/mylanding page.htm?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=timeline-post&utm_campaign=mycampaign.
Google would see that new URL as a completely different page due to the extra parameters, but it would still have the canonical in the header pointing back to the plain version of the page URL, you would avoid duplicate content issues and splitting of page authority.
This demonstrates how the canonical tag can help prevent future problems even if it's not essential right now.
Make sense?
Paul
-
Example:
The page has a rel=canonical pointing to itself. That is what the tool recommeds.
The page still has a canonical tag pointing to the preferred URL.
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
-
Ranking dropped after change single page url, should I change it back?
I was making updates to the content on the following page, and a few days later dropped from #2 SERP ranking to 50+. Things I checked: Yes, 301 redirect was implemented right away. After publishing, I manually requested indexing in search console. Right after publishing I re-submitted the sitemap manually and Google said they had not crawled it in 9 days. My question: should I change the URL back to the old one, or give it a little more time (especially since I re-submitted sitemap) Original URL: https://www.travelinsurancereview.net/plans/travel-medical/ New URL: https://www.travelinsurancereview.net/plans/travel-medical-insurance/
On-Page Optimization | | DamianTysdal0 -
Canonicals
I dynamically generated pages using rewrite functions in wordpress (new-york, san-diego, san-francisco). All these pages look the same but with different content. yoast (seo wordpress plugin) was unaware of this and set canonicals up relating to the wordpress page used as the template page for the dynamic pages (City_home_page). so all these pages had the canonical https://dinnerdancecruises.com/City_Home_Page. using search console, i saw google indexed my site, looked at all these dynamically created pages (which is about 30 pages) and took them all in as duplicate pages. this happen sometime in april or may. I fixed this problem and set unique canonicals up for each dynamically created page. but now google is not crawling them for some reason. im not sure why its been months and these pages are not indexed. i thought to myself is it because these links end up on multiple pages? sort of like having "terms of agreement" link at the footer. every single page has that terms of agreement link. does google look at those links as duplicates and not index the page at all. this is where my issue lies. i need google to crawl regularly and see those pages with their new, unique canonicals and re-index them correctly. but it seems to save cpu resources, google feels once a thief always a thief. i could be wrong but this is why i need your suggestion. thank you.
On-Page Optimization | | bobperez7360950 -
Optimal URL structure for location-specific pages
I'm in the middle of revamping a website for a restaurant that has multiple locations and am trying to decide what the best URL/internal link structure would be. Right now, each restaurant has a single location page, but we are going to add additional pages for catering. Sitewide-linked pages exist for /catering and /locationname. The way I see it, we have two basic options: Option #1: Catering page - /locationname/catering/ Option #2: Catering page - /catering/locationname/ In both cases, there would be links from the /locationname an /catering pages to the location-specific catering pages. Is either option preferable to the other?
On-Page Optimization | | mblair0 -
URL / Meta info for Author bio pages
When you create a biography page for authors that point back to their G+ account, do you include any other signals in the URL other than the authors name? For example, would you use www.domain.com/sam-spade or www.domain.com/sam-spade-biography, etc? Similar question for the meta description. Do you add any signals there? Or, is rel=author strong enough. Best,
On-Page Optimization | | ChristopherGlaeser
Christopher0 -
URL parameters
Hello, Currently, I paginated a content to 5 pages eg: http://abc.com/faqs.html?&page=2 Is it right? and how to check it is correct or not?
On-Page Optimization | | JohnHuynh0 -
Header Links vs. In Page Links
We have lost considerable rank for some of our top search terms (department names) and the rank loss correlates to a change we made on our homepage. That change was to remove a secondary navigation to the major departments in the content of our homepage. Now all we have is the global header navigation on the homepage (and all other pages on the site). I have read that in-page links pass more value than sitewide header links and I'm wondering if this is really true. These were text links (not linked images) and our header also contains text links (and some javascript). We did not make any other changes on our site at this time and this was not around the time of any major algorithm updates. The site is www.ebags.com.
On-Page Optimization | | SharieBags1 -
Authority of a page
What factors contribute towards the authority of a page ? No. of links to a page ?
On-Page Optimization | | seoug_20050 -
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