Canonical url question
-
i just search seomoz tooll
it say duplicate content for
and
should i use canonical url for this ?
is yes then
is this right ?
-
Yeah, I think canonical is fine for "index.php" variants. One important addition, though. Check your internal link structure. Many sites link to "index.php" via their "Home" link or logo. I'd suggest changing that to an absolute URL or just "/". That way, you're not creating the non-canonical version in the first place.
-
thats why i said the bit about using non-www in htaccess too
-
no trailing slash where you've got say .php or .html at the end
-
I mean canonical is not a bad idea but my suggestion was to use 301 redirection from all different forms of domain URL to your prefered version so that all juice that you have on different URLs can transfer to the preferred version and at the same time visitors also redirect to the URL version you want....
-
-
In addition to those 301 rules stick this in your htacess file
DirectoryIndex index.php index.html site-down.php
it tells the browser and bots which page is the default for your folders and root.
Also ensure your non-www forward to www. using this code
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L] -
This is a great question. Yes, you should use a canonical tag. But, I would suggest that your canonical tag needs to be:
Notice the addition of the '/"
THe, I would also make sure that these URLs produce 301 status codes when going through your server:
This is very important so as not to fragment your link profile and also not to produce massive amounts (potentially) of duplicate content in Google and other search engines.
Hope that helps!
Dana
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
-
How To Shorten Long URLS
Hi I want to shorten some URLs, if possible, that Moz is reporting as too long. They are all the same page but different categories - the page advertises jobs but the client requires various links to types of jobs on the menu. So the menu will have: Job type 1
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ann64
Job type 2
Job Type 3 I'm getting the links by going to the page, clicking a dropdown to filter the Job type, then copying the resulting URL from the address bar. Bu these are really long & cumbersome. I presume if I used a URL shortener, this would count as redirects and alsonot be good for SEO. Any thoughts? Thanks
Ann0 -
Full title in url
Hi to all, what is the best url structure, to have all words in the url or to tweak url like Yoast suggest? If we remove some words from url , not focus keyword but stop words and other keywords to have shorter url will that impact search rankings? example.com/one-because-two-for-three-on-four - long url, moz crawl error, yoast red light example.com/one-two-three-four - moz ok, yoast ok Where one is a focus keyword.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WalterHalicki0 -
Schema question
Hi all, We have two Trustpilot schemas (Local Business) on our web pages ( One on desktop / one on mobile) but we are finding that it is not updating the number of reviews in the search results. When using the tool : https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/ , the test results are coming back ok. I have two ideas as to why it may not be working; 1) The duplication of the schema code is causing issues 2) We had to change the html code for all of our 50+ backend pages using a search&replace WordPress plugin to save a vast amount of time. Maybe this is plugin related? The fact that the google testing tool gives back positive results adds to the confusion. I test both of the theorised issues to see if it provides a fixes. Can anyone shed some further light on this issue? Is there something obvious I am missing? All responses are greatly appreciated! Thanks, Tom p.s. Example Page: https://www.allcleartravel.co.uk/asthma-travel-insurance/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AllClearMarketing0 -
Transferring link juice from a canonical URL to an SEO landing page.
I have URLs that I use for SEM ads in Google. The content on those pages is duplicate (affiliate). Those pages also have dynamic parameters which caused lots of duplicate content pages to be indexed. I have put a canonical tag on the Parameter pages to consolidate everything to the canonical URL. Both the canonical URL and the Parameter URLs have links pointing to them. So as it stands now, my canonical URL is still indexed, but the parameter URLs are not. The canonical page is still made up of affiliate (duplicate) content though. I want to create an equivalent SEO landing page with unique content. But I'd like to do two things 1) remove the canonical URL from the index - due to duplicate affiliate content, and 2) transfer the link juice from the canonical URL over to the SEO URL. I'm thinking of adding a meta NoIndex, follow tag to the canonical tag - and internally linking to the new SEO landing page. Does this strategy work? I don't want to lose the link juice on the canonical URL by adding a meta noindex tag to it. Thanks in advance for your advice. Rob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | partnerf0 -
Duplicate Content Question
We are getting ready to release an integration with another product for our app. We would like to add a landing page specifically for this integration. We would also like it to be very similar to our current home page. However, if we do this and use a lot of the same content, will this hurt our SEO due to duplicate content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NathanGilmore0 -
Use of Rel=Canonical
I have been pondering whether I am using this tag correctly or not. We have a custom solution which lays out products in the typical eCommerce style with plenty of tick box filters to further narrow down the view. When I last researched this it seemed like a good idea to implement rel=canonical to point all sub section pages at a 'view-all' page which returns all the products unfiltered for that given section. Normally pages are restricted down to 9 results per page with interface options to increase that. This combined with all the filters we offer creates many millions of possible page permutations and hence the need for the Canonical tag. I am concerned because our view-all pages get large, returning all of that section's product into one place.If I pointed the view-all page at say the first page of x results would that defeat the object of the view-all suggestion that Google made a few years back as it would require further crawling to get at all the data? Alternatively as these pages are just product listings, would NoIndex be a better route to go given that its unlikely they will get much love in Google anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | motiv80 -
How canonical url harm our website???
Even though my website has no similar/copied content, i used rel=canonical for all my website pages. Is Google or yahoo make any harm to my SERP's?? EX: http://www.seomoz.org is my site, in that i used canonical as rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.seomoz.org" to my home page like that similar to all pages, i created rel=canonical. Is search engine harm my website???
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MadhukarSV0 -
Is having a canonical tag for the link that IS the canonical a negative thing?
Throughout our site, canonical tags have been added where needed. However, the canonical tags are also included for the canonical itself. For example, for www.askaquestion.com, the canonical tag has been added as www.askaquestion.com. Will this have a negative impact or does it not really matter whether there is such a loop?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kbbseo0