Is it important to have a Rel-Canonical tag on every webpage?
-
Our website just had its first crawl test and about 90% of the pages have the tag.
-
Sean
It's not really necessary to use canonical url's. If you are sure that every piece of content on your site is available on a unique url you don't need to implement them.
It doesn't hurt having them either. Using canonical url's (if implemented properly) can help to avoid duplicate content issues. Like Patrick mentioned, having canonicals doesn't imply that no duplicate content issues exist (I've seen sites where the canonical url is always equal to the url - which renders them completely useless)
Crawl tools like Screaming Frog are the best option to check if you need canonicals, and if you have them, to check if they are properly implemented.
rgds,
Dirk
-
Hi Sean
Yes, this is important, but make sure the canonical tags are implemented correctly and pointing to the right page. Just because pages have canonical tags, doesn't mean they are correct.
You can use tools like Moz or ScreamingFrog to check.
Hope this helps! Good luck!
-
Yes, important. Any reason you wouldn't? Which pages don't?
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
-
Do we need rel="prev" and rel="next" if we have a rel="canonical" for the first page of a series
Despite having a canonical on page 1 of a series of paginated pages for different topics, Google is indexing several, sometimes many pages in each topic. This is showing up as duplicate page title issues in Moz and Screaming Frog. Ideally Google would only index the first page in the series. Do we need to use rel="prev" etc rather than a canonical on page 1? How can we make sure Google crawls but doesn't index the rest of the series?
Moz Pro | | hjsand1 -
Duplicate Content even when Canonical is used
Hi Everyone, Our website uses the Magento platform which is notorious for creating duplicate content. I tried to make sure that all the duplicate content it creates should be "canonicalized" to the correct page. While looking through the moz Page Diagnostics I see that I have 1003(!) pages of duplicate content. When I downloaded the csv I saw that over 95% of them had a canonical url. Does that mean there is really no issue but moz analytics is still reading it as duplicate content and titles? Is there an issue with them being canonicals as opposed to being redirected? Thanks!
Moz Pro | | EcomLkwd1 -
Site Explorer shows links as followable but they have nofollow tags
Hello, I am looking at site explorer and sites linking to my site moneyfact.co.uk. I've got thousands of links showing as 'followable' but when i check them they have rel="nofollow" tags. e.g: http://www.dianomioffers.co.uk/partner/moneyfacts.co.uk/brochures.epl?partner=93&partner_id=93&partner_variant_id=33 Why would they show as followable when the links are nofollowed? Thanks Steve
Moz Pro | | SteveBrumpton0 -
Duplicate pages with canonical links still show as errors
On our CMS, there are duplicate pages such as /news, /news/, /news?page=1, /news/?page=1. From an SEO perspective, I'm not too worried, because I guess Google is pretty capable of sorting this out, but to be on the safe side, I've added canonical links. /news itself has no link, but all the other variants have links to "/news". (And if you go wild and add a bunch of random meaningless parameters, creating /news/?page=1&jim=jam&foo=bar&this=that, we will laugh at you and generate a canonical link back to "/news". We're clever like that.) So far so good. And everything appears to work fine. But SEOMoz is still flagging up errors about duplicate titles and duplicate content. If you click in, you'll see a "Note" on each error, showing that SEOMoz has found the canonical link. So SEOMoz knows the duplication isn't a problem, as we're using canonical links exactly the way they're supposed to be used, and yet is still flagging it as an error. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is it just a bug in SEOMoz?
Moz Pro | | LockyDotser0 -
Is canonical link enough?
Hi SEOmozers! I have a question. SEOmoz analysis report me some duplicate that I thought I had fix. I can give a concrete example. This page: http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/events/dec2011training-boston/moreinfo is reported as having 6 duplicated URL in the tool. When I click on 6, SEOMOZ tells me "Our crawl bots are getting their joints greased to fetch you even better data. Sorry for the delay!" And on the page itself, I placed a canonical link to follow recommandation. rel="canonical" href="http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/events/apr2012training-boston" /> As a result I am curious why I would have this reported as duplicate by SEOmoz. Is this a bug? Thanks for feedback!
Moz Pro | | nuxeo0 -
Canonical issue in open site explorer
When I look at my back links in OSE, I see two landing pages on my site that are really the same page. www.mysite.com/ and www.mysite.com/(affiliate code here) These show different inbound link characteristics and page authority. The page in question has a rel=canonical tag. Am I doing something wrong?
Moz Pro | | EugeneF0 -
Schedule crawls for 2 subdomains every 24 hours
I saw at this link: http://pro.seomoz.org/tools/crawl-test "As a PRO member, you can schedule crawls for 2 subdomains every 24 hours, and you'll get up to 3,000 pages crawled per subdomain." However I am having trouble finding where to schedule this 24 hour crawl in my Pro Dashboard. I did not see the option for this setting in the crawl diagnostics tab or in the campaign settings section from the dashboard home page. Can you help? thanks! Michael
Moz Pro | | texmeix0 -
Rel=canonical
Hi, there is something puzzling us about the rel=canonical reports... On the general report that is generated after the system crawls our site, we have blue flags on the rel=canonical tag, but the flags don't actually specify exactly what is wrong, they just say: "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical." so we presumed that we should take the rel=canonical tag out of our pages, and after we did so, we noticed that the on-page-report-card (the one that shows up when you run the keyword page optimization tool from the research tools) says (close to the bottom of the report) that we should have 1 canonical tag on each page. So right now we're confused, the general website crawl report flags the rel canonical as being bad and then the on page report flags not having them, we don't really know what to do, should we keep the rel=canonical or not? We are using wordpress to power our site, wordpress has a built-in system for generating the rel canonical for each page, I've checked that and the tags are being generated properly, but we have no idea why the general website report flags them in blue, the error message is not too comprehensive. Any help or information you could provide would be much appreciated. Our website is taxproblem.org thanks.
Moz Pro | | joemas990