I need to know more clearance on rel=canonical usage than 301 redirects ?
-
Hi all SEOmozs,
As we all know purposes of rel=canonical , I have a query to ask that If we don't have any possibility to use 301 redirects on a domain , can it be really right to use rel=canonical on an old domain to let search engine to treat those all pages should be not priority where the domain we are being promoted in the market to list up instead that. I found this interesting Matt Cutts video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJK5Uloy76g where he has told or cleared the point very nicely, yes we can use it if there is no possibility in your older domain or pages. So here i am asking the same to know more detailed clarity on this so that i can be more confidence on it.
I have been seeing issues in my domains where old one domain comes than new domain why with new domain contents, and can it be really very good to bring new domain with **rel=canonical without using 301 redirect :
Old : kanin.com (leaving) New : kangarokanin.com (promoting)Where i might have not used yet the rel=canonical in old domain, will be going to use it soon , after finishing this discussion.**
Regards,
Teginder Ravi -
The thumbs up Dr. Pete,
You definitely explain that much better than I could. And completely agree once the 301 in place there should be nothing else associated with it.
Teginder
I thought I would send this link with a screenshot from Google searching for staplers Google I noticed in your screenshots you are logged in to Google I just wanted you to know if you're constantly searching for staplers and your URL Google will modify the search to suit what it thinks is your needs. Hence I did a very unscientific incognito check allowing Google to give me a less biased search result. to make it more useful high logged into SEM Rush and searched staplers and received what you can find inside the CVS file for the top 10 organic results. So you know this is what came up In the photographs is different from what SEM Rush and Google are telling me.
https://blueprintmarketing.sharefile.com/d/scdb1ed7e9464929b
The very best of luck with your new website.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zickell
-
The thumbs up Dr. Pete,
You definitely explain that much better than I could. And completely agree once the 301 in place there should be nothing else associated with it.
Teginder
I thought I would send this link with a screenshot from Google searching for staplers Google I noticed in your screenshots you are logged in to Google I just wanted you to know if you're constantly searching for staplers and your URL Google will modify the search to suit what it thinks is your needs. Hence I did a very unscientific incognito check allowing Google to give me a less biased search result. to make it more useful high logged into SEM Rush and searched staplers and received what you can find inside the CVS file for the top 10 organic results. So you know this is what came up In the photographs is different from what SEM Rush and Google are telling me.
https://blueprintmarketing.sharefile.com/d/scdb1ed7e9464929b
The very best of luck with your new website.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zickell
-
Thanks Dr. Pete for lighting more on this comparing with 301 redirects & rel tags.
-
One thing that I almost always see overlooked in these discussion - 301 and canonical have totally different impacts on the visitors to your site. A 301 will take the visitor to the new site, whereas a canonical won't. If you're really trying to phase out the old domain, canonicals could be self-defeating, because people won't know the site has moved and they'll still bookmark, tweet, link to, etc. the old URLs.
Keep in mind, too, that cross-domain canonicals are at Google's discretion. While they often work, and can pass PageRank, they're sometimes ignored. The are cases where canonicals may be safer, such as if you suspect the old domain carries a penalty. For a full site move, though, I'd almost always go with 301s.
-
Hi Teginder, When you apply the 301 Redirect to the new webpage Google will actually no longer index it it will believe that it has just become a part of the pages just pointed at meaning you literally could set the rel tags but that's all you'd have to do you definitely do not need to worry about. I hope I was of help Sincerely , Thomas Zickell
-
I want to know one more thing that i am going to use and bring new domain pages with using rel=canonical tags where there is no possibility of 301 redirect use WITH , I just want to know that Will Google not to index the pages where i will use noindex and get to know that the same page has been letting to move new primary versions of the page to crawl and index them. Regards, Teginder Ravi
-
prior to changing domains you want to do exactly this
with rel=canonical without using 301 redirect :
Old : kanin.com (leaving) New : kangarokanin.com (promoting)** that will get Google on the same track but you really don't want take long before implementing the 301 redirect maybe 24 hours.**
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
-
Trailing slash on the main website - do i need a 301 ? Is my 301 correct?
Hello, Im a bit confused. If i use a tool like majestic to look at my website links, www.example.com and www.example.com**/ have huge difference in their authority.** Do i need to make a 301 redirect to the site with the splash or not? Will google itself understand that they are my main site? Is this the "http://www.website.com.com/"/> correct canonical? Meaning it has trailing splash and also RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.example.com [NC]
Technical SEO | | advertisingcloud
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 [L,R=301] - this one has trailing splash, correct?0 -
404 to 301 redirects is there a limit?
Hi We've just updated our website and have binned out alot of old thin content which has no value even if re written. We have a lot of 404 error on WMT and I am in the process of doing 301 redirects on them. Is there a limit to the number of 301 the site should have?
Technical SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0 -
When to use mod rewrite / canonical / 301 redirect
Hello, I have taken over the management of a site which has a big problem with duplicate content. The duplicate content is caused by two things: Upper and lower case urls e.g: www.mysite.com/blog and www.mysite.com/Blog The other reason is the use of product filters / pagination which mean you can get to the same 'page' via different filters. The filters generate separate URLs. http://www.mysite.com/casestudy
Technical SEO | | Barques-Design
http://www.mysite.com/casestudy/filter?page=1
http://www.mysite.com/casestudy/filter?solution=0&page=1
http://www.mysite.com/casestudy?page=1
http://www.cpio.co.uk/casestudy/filter?solution=0" Am I right to assume that for the case sensitive URLs I should use a 301 redirect because I only want the lower page to be shown? For the issue with dynamic URLs should we implement a mod-rewrite and 301 to one page? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Mat0 -
301 redirects don't work properly
Hello all, I've been working on 301 redirects for a bit and normally it's no problem but some seem to be going wrong. Redirect 301 /3-zits.html http://www.bankstellenshop.com/banken/3-zits.html This one works properly but the following one gives a very strange result as it goes to http://www.bankstellenshop.com/bankstellen.html/u (no idea where the .html comes from) Redirect 301 /bankstellen/u http://www.bankstellenshop.com/bankstellen/u.html Any idea what I'm doing wrong or what should change? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | Kapottefietsband0 -
Moving content from CMS pages to a blog - 301 or rel canonical?
Our site has some useful information buried in out-of-the-way CMS pages, and I feel like this content is more suited to our blog. What's my best method here? 1. Move the content to a blog post, delete the original page, and 301. 2. Move the content to a blog post, leave the original page up, and rel canonical. 3. Rewrite the content so it's not a duplicate, keep original page up, and post rewritten content on the blog. 4. Something else. Some of this content has inbound links and some does not. Quite a bit of it gets long-tail traffic already. It just looks kludgy because it's on pages that really aren't designed for articles. It would look much nicer and be much more readable/shareable/linkable on the blog.
Technical SEO | | CMC-SD0 -
Rel Canonical for Miva Merchant
Due to necessary pagination on the site that sells thousands of products, and due to products being assigned to more than one category in the Miva Merchant store, we have been battling duplicate content, and Meta tag issues. I asked lot of questions on the Miva forum on how to use rel canonical in Miva, and got this script below to use. It was supposed to solve all of our problems, but now it seems that every page of the site is under Rel Canonical Notices in the Crawl Diagnostics. I am not sure I am reading the Notices correctly, and if we achieved what we want or not. Here is an example of one listing: URL: http://www.domain.com/ABUS.html
Technical SEO | | 2CDevGroup
Tag Value: http://www.domain.com/
Page Authority: 28
Linking Root Domains: 1 | | | | |0 -
Trailing Slashes In Url use Canonical Url or 301 Redirect?
I was thinking of using 301 redirects for trailing slahes to no trailing slashes for my urls. EG: www.url.com/page1/ 301 redirect to www.url.com/page1 Already got a redirect for non-www to www already. Just wondering in my case would it be best to continue using htacces for the trailing slash redirect or just go with Canonical URLs?
Technical SEO | | upick-1623910 -
301 Redirect Help
Hello! I am getting ready to launch my freshly coded site in the next week or so. My product URLs are changing SLIGHTLY and want to confirm I am going about things the right way: A. My LIVE site store URLs look like http://hiphound.com/shop/dog-collars . My DEV site store URLs look like http://hiphound.com/dog-collars . No /shop directory. B. The dev firm installed the rewrite rule below: ############################################ enable rewrites Options +FollowSymLinks RewriteEngine on #RedirectMatch 301 ^/shop?/$ http://hiphound.com/ RedirectMatch 301 ^/shop?/$ http://hiphound.com ########################################### C. When I manually enter a URL with /shop in the address the website redirects to the correct page which is good. QUESTIONS I HAVE 1. Is the above redirect correct? I need them to permanent. Don't think the above is right... 2. Will links in the Google index be redirected as well? I am assuming yes but just want to confirm. 3. For each page indexed in Google will its pagerank, etc. be passed to the new page using just the 301 above? 4. Do I need to create addtional 301s for each page? So mapping the old page to the new page? Please advise. The goal here is to of course preserve the rankings of the pages already in the Google index. THANK YOU!!! Lynn
Technical SEO | | hiphound0