vs.
-
I have a site that is based in the US but each page has several different versions for different regions. These versions live in folders (/en-us for the US English version, /en-gb for the UK English version, /fr-fr for the French version, etc.). Obviously, the French pages are in French. However, there are two versions of the site that are in English with little variation of the content. The pages all have a tag to indicate the language the page is in. However, there are no <hreflang>tags to indicate that the pages are the same page in two different languages.</hreflang>
My question is, do I need to go through and add the <hreflang>tags to each page to reference each other and identify to Google that these are duplicate content issues, but different language versions of the same content? Or, will Google figure that our from the tag?</hreflang>
-
Without Hreflang markup the en-US and en-GB pages will be treated as duplicate content. You do not want that. In fact, even with hreflang the two may be considered duplicates if there isn't enough differentiated content.
Also, be careful with canonicals. You shouldn't specify the en-US page as the canonical URL for the fr page. The fr page is its own page and you should use hreflang to specify other language versions.
-
Thanks, Martijn. The pages all have self-referencing canonical tags (except for the blog posts which have all non-US English pages referencing the US English version as the canonical page.
I'm going to be safe and implement the HREF Lang tags. Do you think the self-referencing canonical tags on each version of the page are going to cause a problem?
-
Hi Mike,
I definitely wouldn't trust only on using the HTML Lang Tag, as that's something that isn't used a lot by sites in the end. Plus it's a vague indicator to Google that that is the actual language that is being used there. I would go with stating the different pages with the HREF Lang tag and worst case go with a canonical tag implementation.
Martijn.
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
-
Link to AMP VS AMP Google Cache VS Standard page?
Hi guys, During the link building strategy, which version should i prefer as a destination between: to the normal version (php page) to the Amp page of the Website to the Amp page of Google Cache The main doubt is between AMP of the website or standard Version. Does the canonical meta equals the situation or there is a better solution? Thank you so mutch!
Technical SEO | | Dante_Alighieri0 -
Search Console Indexed Page Count vs Site:Search Operator page count
We launched a new site and Google Search Console is showing 39 pages have been indexed. When I perform a Site:myurl.com search I see over 100 pages that appear to be indexed. Which is correct and why is there a discrepancy? Also, Search Console Page Index count started at 39 pages on 5/21 and has not increased even though we have hundreds of pages to index. But I do see more results each week from Site:psglearning.com My site is https://wwww.psglearning.com
Technical SEO | | pdowling0 -
Https vs http two different domains?
If i visit mywebsite.com.au, www.mywebsite.com.au and http://www.mywebsite.com.au - i get one website BUT if I visit https://www.mywebsite.com.au I get a different website - I also get a untrusted website warning The logo in the bottom right of the https: website is the name of the webdesigner where the website is hosted. Is this a normal practice?
Technical SEO | | GardenBeet0 -
Dynamic vs. static URLs
Hello Everyone, I'm new here on MOZ and just getting back into SEO (a little bit) after not doing anything 'myself' for a couple of years. Currently my individual URLs show as: https://www.example.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=107 (dynamic responsive site). I can switch it to a static site, so the individual product pages read as:https://www.example.com/catalog/category name/product name-107.html It's still a long URL, but it would be keyword rich. Some of my current dynamic pages are indexed,and due to an upgrade I had to do several months back, I already have some redirects (301) from my php extensions to the one listed above. This is my long explanation to my following questions: Does having a dynamic or static site matter when ranking in search engines I already have some redirects coming my older site to this dynamic site, so I would have to make more directs from the dynamic site to my static site - is this okay to do? I'm really at a loss, a couple of years ago, I ranked 1-3 (on Page 1) on Google for all my keywords, (all White Hat work), and now I'm into great abyss of no mans land of the internet (ranked on Page 3+) Thank you for any and all help from everyone! ~Sandra
Technical SEO | | rankmenow0 -
Sub Domain vs. New Root Domain for New Brand
Would you recommend a new brand be placed as a subdomain to the existing parent company or create a separate root domain for this new brand?
Technical SEO | | ScratchMM0 -
Panda Update Question - Syndicated Content Vs Copied Content
Hi all, I have a question on copied content and syndicated content - Obviously copying content directly form another website is a big no no, but wanted to know how Google views syndicated content and if it views this differently? If you have syndicated content on your website, can you penalised from the lastest Panda update and is there a viable solutiion to address this? Mnay thanks Simon
Technical SEO | | simonsw0 -
302 vs. a href="nofollow"
we came across one thing the we did not asked to programm by our intention. we have a magento shop and on the produktpage we have those "compare" buttons. these link have a session id and the follow a 302 back onto the same page. so i beleive the idea is that google will just not follow 302s and thats it. so my questions is: is this right what we beleive if so why is a 302 better compared to a a href="nofollow" ???
Technical SEO | | kynop0