Rel Canonical attribute order
-
So the position of the attribute effect the rel canonical tags' ability to function?
is the way I see it across multiple documents and websites.
Having a discussion with someone in the office and there is a website with it set up as:
Will that cause any problems? The website is inquestion still has both pages indexed within Google using the SITE:domain.com/product as well as SITE:domain.com/category/product
-
No, attribute order is irrelevant.
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
-
Quickview product modal - should I add rel=canonical to each URL ?
I have a quick view modal for all products on my website. How should I deal with these in the page set up eg. should I rel=canonical to the full product page and no-index in robots txt or are they ok in Googles eyes as they are part of the UX ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ColesNathan0 -
Moving from M. to Responsive: Rel Alternate Considerations
Hey Guys, We’re in the process of transitioning our key traffic generating pages on our website from m. to responsive. Today, our site uses Google’s ‘Separate URLs’ method. Rel alternate on desktop pages to m. pages 302 redirects pushing mobile visitors to m. pages Canonical on m. pages back to desktop pages As we make the transition to responsive we’ll be taking the following steps: Removal of 302 redirects pushing mobile visitors to m. pages 301 redirects from m. pages to desktop pages With those changes in mind, I’d love to get the communities opinion on how to best handle the real alternate attribute on desktop pages. I'm considering leaving the rel alternate attribute in place on desktop pages for 30-90 days so that search engines continue to see the alternate version without the 302 redirects in place, crawl it, and as a result discover the 301 redirects more readily. If we remove the 302 redirects as well as the rel alternate, then my feeling is that search engines would just index the responsive page accordingly and be less likely to catch the 301 redirects pointing from the m. pages and make the transition of mobile pages in search indices take longer than necessary. Ultimately, I'm probably splitting hairs and getting a bit nuanced because I believe things will work themselves out whether we leave the rel alternate or remove it but I thought it would be great to get any opinions or thoughts from community members that have made a similar transition. Thanks in advance for stopping by and providing your thoughts. All the best,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TakeLessons
Jon PS - for your reference, the only mention that I was able to dig up in Q&A for a move from m. to responsive are the following: Redirecting M Dot Mobile Website to Responsive Design Website Questions SEO Concerns From Moving Mobile M Dot site to Responsive Version?0 -
Canonical Tags increased after putting the appropriate tag?
Hey, I noticed that the number of duplicate title tags increased from 14k to 30k in Google Search Console. These dup title tags derived from having the incorrect canonical tags. For instance, http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Mens
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggpaul562
http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Womens These two are the same exact pages with two parameters (These are not unisex by the way). Anyway, when I viewed the page source, it had the parameter in the canonical tag so.... it would look like this So whether it be http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/
http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Mens
http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Womens The canonical tag had the "?d=Womens" I figured that wasn't best practices, so for the canonical tag I removed the parameter so now the canonical tag is http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/ for that specific page with parameter (if that makes sense). My question is, why did my number of errors doubled after what I thought fixed the solution?0 -
Strange Cross Domain Canonical Issue...
We have 2 identical ecommerce sites. Using 301 is not an option since both are major brands. We've been testing cross domain canonicals for about 2 dozen products, which were pretty successful. Our rankings generally increased. Then things got weird. For the most part, canonicaled pages appeared to have passed link juice since the rankings significantly improved on the other site. The clean URLs (www.domain.com/product-name/sku.cfm) disappeared from the rankings, as they are supposed to, but some were replaced by urls with parameters that Google had indexed (apparently duplicate content). ex: (www.domain.com/product-name/sku.cfm?clicksource?3diaftv). The parametered URLs have the correct canonical tags. In order to try and remove these from Google's index, we: 1. Had the pages fetched in GWT assuming that Google hadn't detected the canonical tage. 2. After we discovered a few hundred of these pages indexed on both sites, we built sitemaps of the offending pages and had the sitemaps fetched. If anyone has any other ideas, please share.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
Rel=Canonical=CONFUSED
Hey, I am a confused canonical and here's why - please help! I have a master website called www.1099pro.com and then many other websites that simply duplicate the material on the master site (i.e www.1099A.com, www.1099T.com, www.1099solution.com, and the list goes on). These other domains & pages have been around for long enough that they have been able to garner some page authority & domain authority that it makes it worthwhile to redirect them to their corresponding pages on www.1099pro.com. The problem is two-fold when trying to pass this link-juice: I do not have access to the web-service that hosts the other sites/domains and cannot 301 redirect them The other sites/domains are setup so that whatever changes I make to www.1099pro.com are automatically distributed across all the other sites. This means that when I put on www.1099pro.com it also shows up on all the other domains. It is my understanding that having on a site such as www.1099solution.com does not pass any link juice and actually eliminates that page from the search results. Is there any way that I can pass the link juice?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
Canonical url question
i just search seomoz tooll it say duplicate content for www.mysite.com and www.mysite.com/index.php should i use canonical url for this ? is yes then is this right ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
Cross-Domain Canonical Showing as inbound links?
I run several ecommerce websites, and there is some overlap in the products offered between sites. To solve this duplicate content issue, I use a cross-domain rel canonical so that there is only 1 authoritative page per product, even if it is sold on multiple sites. However, I am noticing that my inbound link profile is massively expanding because Google sees these as inbound links. The top linking domains for my site are all owned by me, even though there are not any actual links between the sites. Has anyone else experienced this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevenmusumeche0 -
Canonical URL Tag Usage
Hi there, I have a .co.uk website and a .ie website, which have the exact same content on both, should I put a canonical tag on both websites, on every page? Kind Regards
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780