Have I got Rel Canonical or not?
-
I have 180 warnings of rel=canonical.
The exact wording says this:
Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical.
First - I don't know what that means - is that a good thing of bad thing?
Second - Because of the above question, Im not sure if I have it or should have or it do have it but shouldn't.
Which should I have? What should it look like? How do I fix it?
Also,
I have notices that say 'issue: 301 redirect' and a line about what a 301 redirect is.
Again, do I have it, or not have it, should I have it? Do I have it but shouldn't?
-
Why thank you
-
Hello Gal,
I was going to type out a response for you but realised this post answers your question in greater detail http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not
Hope this helps
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
-
Syntax for canonical tag for a default page in a sub directory (not subdomain) of a web site?
I'm getting two "no canonical tag" errors for the default page of a sub-directory default page (www and root) - again NOT a subdomain. Since the page is not the root of its own site, I tagged it as -- I have tried without the default.asp, but the error remains. Been doing this for 24 years and don't remember running across this before.
Moz Pro | | dcmike0 -
Duplicate Content errors - not going away with canonical
I am getting Duplicate Content Errors reported by Moz on search result pages due to parameters. I went through the document on resolving Duplicate Content errors and implemented the canonical solution to resolve it. The canonical in the header has been in place for a few weeks now and Moz is still showing the pages as Duplicate Content despite the canonical reference. Is this a Moz bug? http://mathematica-mpr.com/news/?facet={81C018ED-CEB9-477D-AFCC-1E6989A1D6CF}
Moz Pro | | jpfleiderer0 -
Is The Number of Duplicate Pages reduced after adding canonical ref to the dupe versions ?
Hi Is the number of duplicate pages reported in a dupe page content error report reduced on subsequent crawls, if you have resolved the dupe content problem via adding the canonical tag to duplicate versions (referring the original page). Like it would if you were solving the problem via a 301 redirect (i think/presume) ? Cheers Dan
Moz Pro | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Update in Moz spider/tools?? Flagging duplicate content / ignoring canonical
Hi all, Has there been an update in the SEOmoz crawling software? We now have thousands of dupe content/page title warnings for paginated product page URLs that have correctly formatted canonicals. e.g. http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx ... has following pages with identical content that have been flagged: http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4 http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=6 http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4 ..plus 4 more URL's. But they all have canonical set. There's even a notice at the bottom of report that tells us there's a canonical set to http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx What gives, SEOmoz ?? Thanks Michael
Moz Pro | | LawrenceNeal0 -
Canonical for Mobile
Hi Guys, I am curious why in SEOMoz, our mobile site is showing to have the canonical tags used on the desktop site but when you double check the code of the mobile website it is showing m.domain.com Any thoughts on why we are seeing this? Also is there any lag in the code updates being reported through the SEOmoz toolset? Thanks for all your help! Cheers,
Moz Pro | | lwalker0 -
'Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical', Critical Factor but appears correct on page
Hi, Trying to get the following page ranked unsuccessfully.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/2/Collections-Quilted-Jackets/c01c02.r16.1 Instead a product page is being ranked, shown below.... http://www.joules.com/en-GB/Womens-Quilted-Jacket/Navy/M_HAMPTON/ProductDetail.raction When I run the on page report card it advises that the Rel Canonical tag needs to point to that page, but we have checked and it looks to be doing that already. Has anyone else had an issue like this? Thanks, Martin
Moz Pro | | rockethot0 -
Why do pages with canonical urls show in my report as a "Duplicate Page Title"?
eg: Page One
Moz Pro | | DPSSeomonkey
<title>Page one</title>
No canonical url Page Two
<title>Page one</title> Page two is counted as being a page with a duplicate page title.
Shouldn't it be excluded?0 -
Do crawl reports see canonical tags?
Greetings, I just redesigned my site, www.funderstanding.com, and have the old site pointing to the new site via canonical URLs. I had a new crawl test run and it showed a large amount of duplicate content. Does the SEO Moz crawl tool validate canonical urls and adjusts the duplicate content count or is this note considered? FYI, I sent from no duplicate content to having 865 errors since the redesign went up so that seems suspicious. I would think though that assuming the canonical tag were used properly, and I hope it is?, that this would not be a problem?? All help with this is most appreciated. Eric
Moz Pro | | Ericc220