Canonical tags and internal Google search
-
Quick question: I want some pages that will have canonical tags, to show up in internal results for a Google site search that's built into the site. I'm not finished with the site, but is it correct to assume that pages with canonical will NOT show up in internal site search results, when powered by Google?
-
Of note, you can also customize your built-in internal Google site search: http://www.google.com/sitesearch/
"Customize search box and results using XML"
-
The opposite. Pages designated as canonical are more likely to show up in results. Here is the Google answer regarding Rel Canonical: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394
Basically canonical tags say to Google "If you find multiple copies of this page, use this version." Note that duplicate content can refer to the page both on and not on the www subdomain, for example:
http://mydomain.com/mypage.html
http://www.mydomain.com/mypage.html
Can be confused by some crawler bots, so using rel canonical everywhere is generally considered a best practice to avoid these situations.
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
-
Unsolved Google Search Console Still Reporting Errors After Fixes
Hello, I'm working on a website that was too bloated with content. We deleted many pages and set up redirects to newer pages. We also resolved an unreasonable amount of 400 errors on the site. I also removed several ancient sitemaps that listed content deleted years ago that Google was crawling. According to Moz and Screaming Frog, these errors have been resolved. We've submitted the fixes for validation in GSC, but the validation repeatedly fails. What could be going on here? How can we resolve these error in GSC.
Technical SEO | | tif-swedensky0 -
Canonical or hreflang?
I have four English sites for four different countries, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand and I want to share some content between the sites. On the pages that share the content, which is essentially exactly the same on all 4 sites, do I use the hreflang tags like: or do I add a canonical tag to the other three pointing to the "origin", which would be the UK site? I believe it is best practice to use one or the other, but I'm not sure which make sense in this situation.
Technical SEO | | andrew-mso0 -
Canonical tag not working
I have a weebly site and I put the canonical tag in the header code but the moz crawler still says that I'm missing the canonical tag. Any tips?
Technical SEO | | ctpolarbears0 -
Canonical URL Tag: Confusing Use Case
We have a webpage that changes content each evening at mid-night -- let's call this page URL /foo. This allows a user to bookmark URL /foo and obtain new content each day. In our case, the content on URL /foo for a given day is the same content that exists on another URL on our website. Let's say the content for November 5th is URL /nov05, November 6th is /nov06 and so on. This means on November 5th, there are two pages on the website that have almost identical content -- namely /foo and /nov05. This is likely a duplication of content violation in the view of some search engines. Is the Canonical URL Tag designed to be used in this situation? The page /nov05 is the permanent page containing the content for the day on the website. This means page /nov05 should have a Canonical Tag that points to itself and /foo should have a Canonical Tag that points to /nov05. Correct? Now here is my problem. The page at URL /foo is the fourth highest page authority on our 2,000+ page website. URL /foo is a key part of the marketing strategy for the website. It has the second largest number of External Links second only to our home page. I must tell you that I'm concerned about using a Cononical URL Tag that points away from the URL /foo to a permanent page on the website like /nov05. I can think of a lot of things negative things that could happen to the rankings of the page by making a change like this and I am not sure what we would gain. Right now /foo has a Canonical URL Tag that points to itself. Does anyone believe we should change this? If so, to what and why? Thanks for helping me think this through! Greg
Technical SEO | | GregSims0 -
Rel=canonical and Google analytics referrals
Hello guys, If I put (rel=can) from site1.com/page1 to site2.com/page1, will site2.com see in his Google Analytics that people are coming from site1.com in the referrals section or somewhere else? I can't find anything on the web about that. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | YST0 -
Google plus
With a single Google search, you can see regular search results, along with all sorts of results that are tailored to you -- pages shared with you by your friends, Google+ posts from people you know. **Does pages shared by friends ** Does this mean pages shared by friends on Google plus ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
For large sites, best practices for pages hidden behind internal search?
If a website has 1M+ pages, with most of them being hidden behind an internal search, what's the best way to get pages included in an engine's index? Does a direct clickpath to those pages need to exist from the homepage or other major hub pages on the site? Is submitting an XML sitemap enough?
Technical SEO | | vlevit0 -
Google crawl rate almost zero since re-launch, organic search up 50% though!
We're confused as to why Google's crawl of our site has dropped hugely since our new site went live. The URLs of almost all pages changed, and were 301d to the new site. About 20% of our pages were blocked by robots.txt for the re-launch. The re-launch has been great for organic search, with hits up about 50%. Yet our new content is taking a lot longer to get indexed than before. Our KB downloaded a day according to webmaster tools are well down, as is time spent downloading a page. Any ideas as to why this is?i7hwX.png
Technical SEO | | soulnafein0