Canonical rel
-
I am having a few issues understanding the whole report card and canonical issue.
I have a wordpress blog www.theseolab.com.au. When i created the blog i had setup http://theseolab.com.au and i thought that was my mistake. When i ran the on page report for www.theseolab.com.au . It said that my canonical was http://theseolab.com. So i changed it and my canonical points to http://www.theseolab.com.au.
5 days later i run the on page again and it still says that there are issues and it still shows that my website canonical is not pointing to the right link.
Does it take time to update or am i missing something?
-
Hey Guys,
Thanks for all the reposes. I have changed it and it seems that the on page optimizer is still using the cashed version. The problem is that it's been almost 6 days
I might try and send an email to the help
-
Hi Olivier,
Thanks for the question!
I reviewed your site (www.theseolab.com.au) and your canonical does look like it's set up correctly. To test out the On-Page tool, I ran a quick query and it showed the same result:
http://screencast.com/t/7omcKndhx
The only thing I can think of is that you saw a cached version of the On-Page report, but those are usually cleared within 48 hours so that shouldn't be the case here. If you see this again, I'd recommend reaching out to help[at]moz.com with an example so we can try and repro this for you.
Hope this helps and let us know if there's anything else you need. Thanks!
Best,
Sam
Moz Helpster -
Hi Olivier,
Just to add to what the guys have said, with a www. and non-www. version of the website, you should really 301 redirect one to the other (I'd always choose to redirect to the www version but you can choose).
-
Yes, i thought so too. I am using the on page report card
I'll wait for the next crawl and see what it says
-
I found this code rel="canonical" href="http://www.theseolab.com.au/" /> in your source which indicates that rel canonical is setup-ed correctly!
I am not sure what tool you are using to check but if you are using Moz and it is displaying something like this, it is not normal... you either should wait till the next crawl or email to their support for that!
hope this helps!
-
Have checked, your canonical page is marked correctly, You should install Moz Toolbar Extension for Chrome & Firefox so as to check details by your side only for future reference
This is the details
Page Attributes Data Meta Robots Not Found Rel="canonical" http://www.theseolab.com.au/ Page Load Time 6.51s Google Cache URL http://google.com/search?q=cache:http://www.theseolab.com.au/ IP Address 180.235.128.118 Country Australia
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
-
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 -
Understanding why our new page doesn't rank. Internal link structure to blame? + understand canonical pages more.
Hi guys. Sorry it's an essay...BUT, i think a lot of you will find this an interesting question. This question is in 2 (related) parts, and I imagine it would be an 'advanced' SEO question. Hoping you guys can help bring some real insight 🙂 Always amazed at the quality for this forum/ community. **Context... ** We had a duplicate content issue caused by this page and it's product permutations, so we placed canonical tags on all the product permutations to solve it. Worked a treat. However, we now have more **product ranges. **We now sell Diaries, Notebooks & Music books, which are clearly different from one another. So...we've placed canonical tags on all the product permutations leading back to the 'parent' theme. In other words, all the diary permutations 'lead back' to the diary page. All the notebooks permutations 'lead back' to the main notebook page. So on and so forth. Make sense so far? Context end..... Issue. Amazingly our Diary page outranks our notebook pagefor the search term 'Design your own Notebook'. The notebook page is well optimised for this search term, and the diary page avoids the word 'notebook' altogether (so no keyword cannibalisation going on). Possible reason? Our Diary page has a vast amount of internal links to it throughout our site. The notebook page has only a few. Could this be the issue? If so, what reading/ blogs/ content/ tools would you recommend to help understand and solve this problem? i.e) Better understanding internal link structure for SEO. 2nd part of the question (in the context of internal linking for SEO). When there are internal links to a page with a conical tag does that 'count' towards the 'parent page', or simply towards that specific page? I really hope that makes sense. If it's clear as mud just shout. Isaac. EDIT: All pages in question have been indexed since we added these changes to the site.
On-Page Optimization | | isaac6630 -
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.
On-Page Optimization | | AllIsWell0 -
Is it a good idea to rel=canonical dozens of old outdated pages?
we have dozens old outdated manual pages that still need to be up, but have terrible code issues (they're exported from word) and no image tagging, etc. there are new pages in place, so should i rel=canonical to the new pages? will this transfer any link juice to the newer, more seo-friendly ones?
On-Page Optimization | | DerekM880 -
Crawling - Blue Notice - Canonical
Hi, I have 270x blue notices within crawl diagnostics in SEOMoz Pro labelled rel=canonical. My site has the rel=canonical tag set-up as I was advised to do so. See www.comparecurrency.co.uk Are these notices suggesting I have to remove the tag? Can somebody please explain this notice to me .. Thanks Olly
On-Page Optimization | | ojkingston0 -
Rel Canonical
Hi Folks I have 77 Rel Canonical warning, and mostly confuse me. Mainly because they seem to be the exact link I would expect for that page. So I'm not so sure why they have been flagged.... two examples below Any thoughts or tips? (please 🙂 ) | Page Title
On-Page Optimization | | PHDAustralia68
URL | Tag value | Page Authority | Linking Root Domains | | BlueTea: New Sydney Kitchen Designs Company, Renovations, Colour Designs http://bluetea.com.au/ bluetea.com.au/ 37 18 Blog | Blue Tea http://bluetea.com.au/2010/10/?cat=15 | bluetea.com.au/category/blog/ | 1 | 0 |
| |0 -
Follow up on "Canonical Tag Placement - Every Page?"
But if it is like Pete said, I don't understand why e.g. SEO Moz has a Canonical Tag on this Page http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps Which leads to the exact same page!? What is the benefit of doing so? Regards
On-Page Optimization | | Here4You0 -
Confirmation regarding canonical and syndication google tags
Hi, We are in the process of improving our CMS upstream to resolve our duplicate content issues. We were hit pretty hard by the Panda update. One of the steps we have taken is implementation of the canonical link tag across all domains in our site. You see, we are a news release service with muliple channels and websites to represent each. The problem is that a client will submit a release and in many cases the news item is relevant to multiple channels I.E. multiple websites under the same IP range. Site Examples:
On-Page Optimization | | jarrett.mackay
www.hotelnewsresource.com www.restaurantnewsresource.com
www.travelindustrywire.com From a user perspective, it makes sense that they should be able to access the article from the site they are browsing without being redirected to the site we feel carries the most relevance. We hope the canconical tag will resolve this issue for us. I have also read about the syndication tag and was looking for feedback or recommendations if we should implement that also, but it may be overkill as the two tags objectives seem to be similar. I guess my first question is if the syndication tag is only used by Google News. Secondly, and a little off topic is that we also offer an API and like many other sites, I have read, our content partners are now doing better in primary and long tail rankings even thought we are the original source. My assumption is that we should modify the API to force using both caconical and syndication tags as well. Lastly, I´m curious if anyone has tested the original source tag and if we should implement that as well. Thanks everyone. Jarrett0