Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

29

There's no circularity implied by having <link rel='canonical' href='http://www.example.com/product/foo' /> appear as http://www.example.com/product/foo. That's the intent. You're saying "the best URL" for this page is http://www.example.com/product/foo, so when the search engines hit http://www.example.com/product/foo?id=1, or ...


15

All questions on Stack Exchange contain a numeric ID (28070 for this question) which is the only thing that uniquely identifies a question. So when a question title is changed, the URL such as /28070/old-question-title still shows the question because the ID is still there. The ID is looked up and the new title returned, meaning that the new URL can be ...


10

301 redirects and canonical links are two very different things. A 301 redirect tells the search engine that the page has permanently moved to a new URL and to forward all links, etc, to the new URL. Basically it's a change of address card for web pages. If you change the URL of a page, including the domain name, you would need to do a 301 redirect so the ...


10

If you don't specifically tell Google your preference you will probably have duplicate content issues. There is more then one way to inform Google of your preferred domain: Do a 301 redirect to use the 'www' or no 'www' Specify your preferred domain in Google Webmaster Tools Use canonical URLs (although it isn't typically used in this situation)


9

I get that it conforms to the strict ISO rules, but why? There are different operating systems behind the various servers on the net, and for some of them a directory or file named page is not the same as one named Page. The result is that those really are two different locations and not even necessarily the same type of location(dir/page). The web ...


8

No offense intended, but Case Sensitivity is VITAL to urls today - they are used millions of times a day: bit.ly http://bit.ly/ri2LhQ http://bit.ly/ri2LHq Two vastly different sites - only possible because of case sensitivity


8

I don't think Canonical is the correct way as you are essentially that the correct url for that page is the new one, as it is different content I think it may conflict. Personally I think the easiest way if you want to keep the old post is the link at the top of the page. Also if you remove the page from google it will be removed and not replaced so you ...


8

No. The canonical element is supposed to resolve duplicate content issues on your site stemming from multiple URLs that pull up the same content. Telling the search engines to go to two different places off the same page totally defeats the purpose. My guess is the company is having some issues internally. It might be their CMS builds composite pages from ...


7

About a year ago Google tackled this problem by creating Source Attribution meta tags: syndication-source: this meta tag is used to point to the long-lived (bookmarkable) URL of the original article. This should be used on all pages that republish the syndicated content, but it can also be used on the original page to point to itself as the syndication ...


7

New sites often do drop in rank Sadly the chances are that Google is repositioning to where it believes you should be, most often new sites and pages get temporary boosts to allow them to catch on so to speak. I've seen what your experiencing hundreds of times and can assure you what your seeing is most likely out of your control until your site becomes ...


6

As long as that url redirects to the main url (and wipes the referrer parameters itself, which you can check by just following the link) or that parameter is set in google webmaster tools to be ignored by googlebot (which is only easy to find out if you're the owner of the site, really), it should make essentially no difference. Otherwise you could resort ...


6

According to RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1), section 3.2.2, the URLs http://www.example.com and http://www.example.com/ are equivalent, and HTTP clients must normalize the former to the latter before sending the request to the server: "If the abs_path is not present in the URL, it MUST be given as "/" when used as a Request-URI for a resource (section 5.1.2)." ...


6

Personally I would do the opposite canonical - ie set /texas/houston as canon instead of /houston - the main reason being to avoid name clashes with identical names in other states. A URL of /springfield could be a little confusing, even if you are showing a specific Springfield page. You also get an extra keyword in the URL. Secondly, I would always prefer ...


6

You should not use the canonical this way, paginated listing are well understood by Google. You can help him to make it clear : http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.fr/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html


5

You can have a <link rel="canonical"> on the original page. There's no harm in doing so. It's just redundant but that's not a problem. <link rel="canonical"> belongs in the <head> section only. If it is outside of the <head> it is invalid HTML and may not be honored.


5

This is not a Google policy, they are basics rules. From a windows user point of view it is difficult to understand case-sensitive filenames. However, under unix/linux systems, pAge and page are not the same files nor directories, and so on webservers. The trailing slash is a configuration issue (or choice). Keep in mind that on most web servers, the ...


5

That's a use of canonicalization, and arguably the most important one, but from the Webmaster Tools content guidelines, pagination: You can also add a rel="canonical" link to the component pages to tell Google that the View All version is the version you want to appear in search results. Even more specific to your example above, the use case is that ...


5

Given the incredible popularity of Google (it is 90% of incoming traffic on Stack Overflow, for example), couldn't you simply check the referer? Example referer strings from search engines: www.bing.com/search?q=javascript+date+to+timestamp&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC ...


5

Adding or omitting a trailing slash to canonical links really doesn't matter to search engines, providing they both work. It maybe be best however to stick with one or the other because Google treats each of these URL's separately, which can lead to duplicate content. See this for more on that: Google Webmaster Central Blog: To slash or not to slash As ...


4

Those will absolutely be considered two different pages. Just one character is all it takes to make two URLs different. Canonical URLs are commonly used for different query strings that product the same content but file extension is no different. Definitely use canonical URLs for pages like that.


4

RewriteRule ^$ /index.html [L] This will tell Apache to treat the hit to the yoursite.com as hit to yoursite.com/index.html without redirecting (URL stays the same). The code you already have (last 2 lines) tells Apache to redirect not www-prefixed url to one with www in front (e.g. http://yourdomain.com/somepage.html => ...


4

According the same page you linked to rel="canonical" is only a suggestion and not a directive: Is rel="canonical" a suggestion or a directive? This new option lets site owners suggest the version of a page that Google should treat as canonical. Google will take this into account, in conjunction with other signals, when determining which URL sets ...


4

If you have the same content being pulled up by multiple URLs you will need to use canonical URLs so search engines will know which URL is the primary URL for that content You should only list the primary URL in your XML sitemap as listing all of the duplicate URLs will not benefit you since you know only the primary URL will be listed in the search results ...


4

The canonical tag tells spiders and other automated thingies that all URLs that return pages with the same tag are all effectively returning the exact same page. I don't think you want to tell robots that your UK and US pages are identical unless they really are. Do they show different currency? Do they maybe even spell words differently? Furthermore, ...


4

Yes and No. The rel="canonical" will avoid the duplicate content issue. However, this particular situation is best resolved with a 301 redirect. foo.htm and foo.htm?parameter=1 are both legitimate URLs that are used on the site, but foo.htm is probably the preferred (canonical) URL. Whereas only 1 of www.example.com and example.com should be accessible - ...


4

I feel I should clear this up. Tim Fountain is correct in his comment. Unlike directories, a domain with a trailing slash is exactly, 100% the same as one without. In other words, it's literally not possible to choose one or the other. So it makes zero difference which you put into your canonical.


4

Fragment identifiers are traditionally used to identify a portion of document for client-side applications. As stated in the specification Google adopted: Traditionally, hash fragments (that is, everything after # in the URL) have been used to indicate one portion of a static HTML document. ...hash fragments are not part of HTTP requests (and as a ...


4

This sounds to me like the exact case for which Google created the canonical tag. You have multiple URLs for the same content with only very minor differences. But you do have some differences that are important to users, so you can't just use redirects. You have a preferred URL where you would like users from search engines to land. Google recommends ...


4

If you 301-redirect from /my-landing-page.html to /my-landing-page, no one will ever get a 200 when visiting /my-landing-page.html. So you don’t need to do anything with this URL (besides redirecting). You shouldn’t block crawling of /my-landing-page.html, as otherwise bots may not notice that there is a redirect now. You may use canonical for ...


4

Sure it will work, You can consider any of the one link as canonical parent (Means original). and other one as duplicate. If the url is different in parameter or its order is not an issue. You can just point one url as its original, SEO Crawlers will identify that. something like <link href="http://shoes.com/compare/adidas/vs/nike/" rel="canonical" ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible