Is your live site supposed to have rel canonical tags?
-
I recently started working for a company and got them to use Moz and I have found that our secure site and our live sites are creating "duplicate content" according to the Crawl Diagnostics feature. On our secure site we have rel canonical tags pointing to our live site. I'm not super familiar with rel canonical tags, but our developer says we're doing the right thing. Would love any insight you guys may have if this is actually duplicate content or not. Thanks so much!
-
Agree with Dave's comments. 1) Get the syntax updated on your canonical links at a minimum. 2) Yes your canonical solution will "work", but it is not best practice. This "solution" is really a last resort. I would try and push to move away from using canonicals this way. You optimally want 1 URL.
Just to add some color, a great / classic video on this was made by Matt Cutts. He gives all kinds of examples where you could have duplicate URLs, i.e. www vs non www subdomain, sorting parameters added onto the URL, different file extensions, capitalization changes, etc. He then gives 3 options to fix them.
-
Best practice: Fix your site where you only have one URL per content item and link to it consistently (Best solution)
-
Use 301 redirects to consolidate to one URL (Next best solution)
-
Use a canonical link, if you cannot do 1 or 2. (Last resort)
Note that Matt says that they treat a canonical as a strong suggestion (it is treated similar to a 301), but they do not always have to follow it. He repeatedly says, use the first two options, and would NOT recommend a canonical as your best or first option.
My favorite quote is at 2:24 in the video, "Developers keep SEOs in business"
What your developer may notice is that Matt does say that using a canonical link for consolidating http and https will work. No one here would say that it would not, it is just not optimal. Sure, you can use a pair of scissors to cut your lawn, "it will work". It doesn't mean it's the best idea. I would think any developer worth his/her salt would want to have "clean code" and having duplicate URLs is not "clean" by SEO standards
Ok, so now you need to go back to the developer or your manager with an argument that is stronger than just, "Well, some random dude on the Moz forum said that Matt Cutt's from Google said it was preferred not to use a canonical link even though it would work". I would never want to leave you in such a position. Here is what will/can happen over time if you stay with your current setup.
-
Report consolidation issues. When you look at GA for traffic or OSE for links, any spidering tool for technical issues, social sharing counts, you now have split data for any given page potentially. Sure there are ways around this, but now you have to spend all your time "fixing" reports that should not be broken to start with. Trust me, this will come back to bite you on the bum and will cripple your efforts to show the efficacy of your SEO work. Now who really wants that?
-
Link juice consolidation issues. With any redirect - you lose a bit of link juice. If you have links to both sets of URLs, any single page is not getting as much credit as it should.
-
Down the line 301 redirect bloat. If you ever change anything and need to setup a 301 redirect, now you have to setup 2 of them and having too many 301s can negatively impact server performance.
One last thing. If you can get the URLs consolidated into one using 301s etc. Go with the https That is the way that we are headed with the web and so you might as well get going in that direction.
Good luck!
-
-
I really appreciate the response and the added information. I guess we will see if anyone else responds!
-
I'd be interested in hearing what someone else has to say about the way the canonicals are coded. You're doing yours similar to the way I do DNS Prefetching with the double slash to start the URL:
It works fine with prefetching as all the browser needs to do is find the IP of the domain but I'm not sure here how it'll handle sub-directories including www and I hate variables even when they're "it should work". The more common way to canonicalize your secured page would be:
/>
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any direct experience with this but at the core of technical SEO issues I always lean to "most common usage" and "how Google shows it in their examples" just to make sure there is minimal chance of hiccups or issues.
That aside though, the developer is right though I'd always still prefer to just see the pages at a single URL. Since that can't be done however ... canonicals are the way to go.
-
That is correct! Here is an example of two URL's of what i'm talking about:
http://www.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinship
https://agrouptt4.secure2.agroup.com/blog/5-signs-of-a-good-clientagency-relatoinshipDoes this help clarify my question? I hope so!
-
I'm not sure I entirely understand the scenario so let me note how I'm hearing it to make sure my understanding is correct to put the answer into context. Please do let me know if my understanding of the scenario is wrong as that may well change my thoughts on it.
You note that your secure site and live site are creating duplicate content. Of course a secure site can be live but I'm taking this to mean you have an area behind a login. That it's creating duplicate content is making me think that a lot of the core information is the same and I'm guessing many of the same pages.
If this is all correct and you can't put the duplicated pages onto one URL only then the canonicals are the way to go and your developer is correct.
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 sift "site search" data from Google Analytics for trends
I apologize in advance if this has been asked a million times but I'm just not able to find anything on it for some reason. Probably the words "site" and "search" come up a lot in this area... Anyhow, my question: How do I find trends in "site search" data from Google Analytics? I set up "site search" a long time ago. I have thousands and thousands of searches people have made on my site logged and squirreled away. The plan was to review them on a weekly basis, find the trends and start writing content to address interests people seem to be having but not finding on our site. Sounded great at the time. The problem I have, of course, is that among my 10,000 searches (many shown in Google Analytics as "no-results:cats and dogs", etc), there are slight differences that make it difficult to total up search trends. Let's say the list is like this: Term | Search Count Cats | 500
Moz Pro | | rtkl
Dogs | 500
Cat | 250
Dog | 250
Cat food | 5
Dog food | 5
Birds | 1
Bird | 1
Cats are great | 1
Cats are really great | 1
Dogs are great | 1
I like birds | 1
Seriously, I like Cats | 1
Turtles | 1 ... 10,000 more entries, every single one only 1 search per term. OK, so it looks like people like Cats and Dogs a lot, but also Birds and Turtles. But maybe there are snake searches. Maybe there are "cat pajamas" searches and variations on all of the above. Who knows what else is really trending in there??? The review of this data is MIND-NUMBING. Especially when you get into plurality and misspellings, this rabbit hole has no bottom. Is there a tool people in the SEO jam use to take a big ole CSV dump and have it magically sorted by at least potential trends? I mean, there's gotta be, right? And I'm silly for not already knowing what it is.0 -
How can I deal with tag page duplicate issues
The Moz crawler reported some dupliated issues. Many of them have to do with tags.
Moz Pro | | IamKovacs
Each tag has a link, and as some articles are under several tags, these come up as duplicate content. I read Dr Peter's piece on Canonical stuff, but it's not clear to me if any of these are the solution. Perhaps the solution lies somewhere else? Maybe I need to block the robots from these urls (But that seems counter-SEO-productive) Thanks
Kovacs0 -
Experts solve some query related Title Tag, Meta Tag Description, Link Building, URL
Title Tag Question Short title tag is more useful so if we just use our targeted keyword in home page title then is it useful.? for example my website: http://www.topnotchlawsuitloans.com/ i am targeting lawsuit loans keyword so if i use <title>TNF - Lawsuit Loans | Lawsuit Funding</title> is batter to use for main page or <title>Lawsuit Loans | Lawsuit Funding | As Low As 1% | PreSettlement Funding</title> can we have to use main targeting keyword on all webpage title tag ? my website have 200+ page and i have to use different title tag for that pages including targated keyword so if i am targeting lawsuit loans in that title, what is best to divide title pipe, hyphen or comma ? does capitalization in title tag wrong effect ? Lawsuit Loans - As low as 1% Lawsuit Loans | As low as 1% Lawsuit Loans, As low as 1% (or i have to use smaller cash in title) for all different page i want to place this kind of title is it best for SEO purpose Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Fargo Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Escondido Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Erie Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Flint Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Fort Wayne Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Fresno Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Gainesville Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Grand Rapids Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Gilbert Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Gresham Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans High Point Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Hialeah Lawsuit Loans - Lawsuit Loans Huntsville if i am using this kind of different title for all page then it can effective for SEO or it will be come in keyword stuffing Meta Tag Description can we add meta tag description like this i mean targeted keyword before the description start, is it useful or not? important Meta tags please visit my http://www.topnotchlawsuitloans.com/ and inform me what are the important meta tags, so i can remove other tags Link Building Question i want to get rank in google for www.topnotchlawsuitloans.com so have to build backlinks with lawsuit loans alt tag but main question is this have to build or gain backlinks for this domain only or one of my website sub domain www.topnotchlawsuitloans.com/lawsuit-funding-philadelphia.html on page #6 so have to build backlink for this URL ??? what are the effective strategy to gain backlinks for main page or all sub pages have to build backlinks ?? how many backlink per keyword & page is good for website. URL i have to use targeted keyword on all sub page domain or not for example now i am using url like this format fundingtype.html litigation-funding.html legal-funding.html financingservices.html process.html and if i re-write all url with targated keyword like this format lawsuit-loans-fundingtype.html lawsuit-loans-litigation-funding.html lawsuit-loans-legal-funding.html lawsuit-loans-financingservices.html lawsuit-loans-process.html so which type URL are more effective for best SEO ??
Moz Pro | | JulieWhite0 -
Why do I see a duplicate content errors when rel="canonical" tag is present
I was reviewing my first Moz crawler report and noticed the crawler returned a bunch of duplicate page content errors. The recommendations to correct this issue are to either put a 301 redirect on the duplicate URL or use the rel="canonical" tag so Google knows which URL I view as the most important and the one that should appear in the search results. However, after poking around the source code I noticed all of the pages that are returning duplicate content in the eyes of the Moz crawler already have the rel="canonical" tag. Does the Moz crawler simply not catch whether that tag is being used? If I have that tag in place, is there anything else I need to do in order to get that error to stop showing up in the Moz crawler report?
Moz Pro | | shinolamoz0 -
Is there a way to get SEOMOZ to not throw an error if i'm using the rel=canonical tag?
There are so many errors (~1500) that I can't find the pages with duplicate content among the ones that are correctly tagged
Moz Pro | | seospeedwagon0 -
Rel Canonical Question
Hi all. I think I'm a bit confused. When I check my crawl diagnostics its listing lots of warnings under the heading rel-canonical. I am not sure why, since virtually all my pages have the link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" tag. I use it because there are a lot of possible extensions that can appear on the pages as it is an eCommerce site. Why would seomoz list this as a warning? Thanks Ken
Moz Pro | | CandymanKen0 -
Inbound Link Discrepancy: Campaign vs Open Site Explorer
Hello, I am getting starkly different inbound link amounts from Open Site Explorer and my Campaigns tab. Domain 1
Moz Pro | | truckguy77
Campaigns: Total links = 10,895,942 Open Site Explorer - Links = 224,000 Domain 2
Campaigns: Total links = 25,670,287
Open Site Explorer - Links = 157,000 Why would these be so different? For reference, the "Historical Domain Analysis" shows these sites getting exponentially more links starting in February. This is of concern to me. I didn't do anything different in February to get so many more links (especially not in the millions). If anything, I am hoping the "Campaigns" section is simply wrong about this.0 -
Does the SEOMoz weekly crawl that highlights no meta description tag, take into account if there is a meta robots noindex,follow tag on the pages it indicates the missing meta descriptions?
The weekly crawl website report is telling me that there are pages that have missing meta description tags, yet I've implemented meta robots tags to 'noindex, follow' those pages which are visible in those page source files. As far as Google Is concerned, surely this then won't be a problem since it is being instructed NOT to consider these specific pages for indexing. I am assuming that the weekly SEOmoz website crawl is simply throwing the missing meta description crawl findings into its report without itself observing that the particluar URL references contain the meta robots 'noindex,follow' tag ???? Appreciate if you can clairfy if this is the case. It would help me understand that (at least in terms of my efforts towards Google) your own crawl doesn't observe the meta robots tag instruction, hence the resultant report's flagging the discrepancy.
Moz Pro | | callassist0