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
-
Crawl Diagnostics - 350 Critical errors? But I used rel-canonical links
Hello Mozzers, We launched a new website on Monday and had our first MOZ crawl on 01/07/15 which came back with 350+ critical errors. The majority of these were for duplicate content. We had a situation like this for each gym class: GLOBAL YOGA CLASS (canonical link / master record) YOGA CLASS BROMLEY YOGA CLASS OXFORD YOGA CLASS GLASGOW etc All of these local Yoga pages had the canonical link deployed. So why is this regarded as an error by MOZ? Should I have added robots NO INDEX instead? Would think help? Very scared our rankings are gonna get effected 😞 Ben
Moz Pro | | Bendall0 -
Compare sites?
I'm frustrated, so want to ask a stupid question....My site.. www.seadwellers.com outranks my biggest competitor in most Moz catagories... www.rainbowreef.us ...EXCEPT Facebook likes...(he has a ton) **And yet, rainbowreef.us outranks me in most keywords on
Moz Pro | | sdwellers
Google?! I know it's not simple...but Can anyone take a quick peek and give me any insight as to why??? ** Example "Dive Key Largo" keyword...he is #1 and I am #5...typical in the most important keywords!0 -
H1 tag question
I am currently going through the process of optimizing my pages for my given keywords. Most of my pages are receiving an A grading from the Moz page checker, with keywords being found in all elements expect for the H1 tag. For certain pages I have not used a H1 tag, the pages title has been incorporated into the image on the top of the page. This is difficult to explain without showing you so i will use one of my pages to explain, the page is http://www.ecobode.co.uk/garden-uses-3/garden-gym/. The keyword for this page is garden gym, it is found multiple times in the content, URL and other on page elements expect for the H1 tag as I don't have one. The title resides in the image, I know how important H1 tags are but I don't know how I can incorporate into this page. Does anyone have any ideas how I can incorporate the H1 tag into this page? Kind Regards, Tom
Moz Pro | | Tmgale0 -
Open site explorer, why are my social media metrics incorrect?
In open site explorer the Facebook and twitter stats are very low in correlation to what we think it should be. Twitter - 129 Total tweets and retweets of this URL since March 2010, including tweets of the URL with unique parameters added. We tweet our URL and people retweet our url several times a day, why is this figure so low? Facebook - 268 shares, 133 likes. Our Facebook page has 16,767 likes · 1,373 talking about this. Surely this figure should be higher? Could it be that its not linked to our site properly some how? im unsure, can any one shed any light on this please?
Moz Pro | | Alexogilvie0 -
Open Site explorer
I checked some of the results with OSE that ranked top on Goolge SERPS that have high Domain Authority,Page Authority 1 and content on the website's particular page is thin. How come they rank high when PA is very low?
Moz Pro | | Frost0 -
Why site is getting ranked in top three positions on Bing and Yahoo but not in Google?
My site Business-Training-Schools.com is getting descent traffic from Bing and Yahoo but very little from Google. Can you please help me in finding out the root cause of it?
Moz Pro | | HQP0 -
Opensite explorer not showing facebook/twitter other sites
hello i have had my site live and indexing for 3 months however open site explorer doesn't show the facebook or twitter linkback from my corporate sites. any ideas why this would not show in opesite? it doesn't show in google WMT either. my site: http://cheap-airport-taxis.com/
Moz Pro | | smashseo0 -
How can you set SEOmoz to work with your dev site behind an htpasswd?
All sites need to be developed from the small to the grand - and this takes time. Development usually takes place on a subdomain different from our live domain. It is locked down behind an htpasswd during development so its not picked up by searching engines - that may create duplicate content issues if when the site goes live it has already scanned our site on the development server. Its also a security implementation to keep the site away from prying eyes before its ready for launch There could be security holes that have not been tweaked. Whats the best strategy to get SEOmoz involved in this scenario. Its tools are invaluable to the SEO part of the build - but the seomoz crawler bot has a different IP address (being cloud based) - so we cannot just let a single IP address through our htpasswd. Also is there a way to link the dev and live site in seomoz - so when it goes live to maintain all teh same logs without having to create two seperate site campaigns? Thanks!
Moz Pro | | dseo2410