Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

Web browsers do not care about canonical URLs. It is for search engine use only (specifically Google). Additionally, canonical URLs do not affect the loading or rendering of a web page. So no assets will be loaded over HTTP which is what would cause an insecure error message. So, no, they will not display any error message.


5

Putting the ID near the beginning of a URL is better than putting it near the end. URLs often get truncated in emails or by CMS systems that show them to users. When the ID is at the end the truncation will often lop it off and cause 404 errors on your site. When it is near the beginning, your site can still redirect to the full URL. When Googlebot ...


4

You should not use both noindex and rel=canonical, because noindex won't let pages pass any PageRank to its canonical version. rel="canonical" is a hint, not a directive, so Google will decide which page to take and show in search results. Here are posts at seroundtable, there they cite John Mueller's comments, from Google: No, you should not ...


4

Here is Google's position from an archived live chat session (the link is now dead): *Does inconsistent capitalization of URLs cause duplicate content issues and dilution of page rank? For example www.site.com/abc vs www.site.com/Abc. On Windows hosts, these are the same page, but are different pages on Unix hosts. JohnMu: Hi John, based on the ...


4

Two of the most widely used web servers have very different settings for case sensitivity of URLs by default. Whether or not your URLs are case sensitive is likely a function of which you are using: Microsoft IIS - case insensitive URLs - shows the same content regardless of capitalization. Apache HTTPD Server - case sensitive URLs - gives a 404 not ...


4

From the SEO prospective, i bet there might be a difference: In you first example, the ID is separated from the title, making it clear to the crawler it is a different resource (as the / character does it naturally). In your second example, the ID is mixed with the title. It requires more brains from the crawler to determine the meaning of it. Imagine ...


4

Google allows you to specify the canonical as an HTTP header. They give an example for canonicalizing one PDF file to another: Link: <http://www.example.com/downloads/white-paper.pdf>; rel="canonical" This page shows how to use .htaccess to put these headers in. It would be: RewriteRule ([^/]+)\.(pdf|doc|txt)$ - [E=FILENAME:$1] <FilesMatch ...


3

It shouldn't. The unsecure warning comes about when a secured page incorporates non-secured elements. A canonical tag is a link, not an object to be incorporated into the page, so there's no reason why the padlock should care whether the URL it points to is http or https.


3

You may run into issues with duplicate content. You probably do not want to create canonical tags when they are not necessary. Too much work. You can try a redirect: RewriteCond %{REMOTE_ADDR} ^123\.321\.123\.32$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://site.com/$1 [R=301,L] Of course you can adjust this to suit your needs. Insert this into your .htaccess file. ...


3

This looks pretty spot on to me, apart from on the Spanish desktop site set, where there are quite a few errors. You are referencing the mobile version with the three rel="alternate" hreflang= tags, you should be referencing the desktop version. The canonical tag on the Spanish desktop is pointing to the English language page. If you need to set a ...


3

Your "SEO expert" might be a lying bastard, but this probably isn't the reason. He's absolutely right about this. This is a little known edge case in URL construction. RFC 3986 is the official definition of the URL format and rules on how to encode and decode URL. Any URL parser should be following this as closely as possible to avoid errors and be ...


3

You could simple make a button/link with a text like "This site is in https, click here to view via https", maybe add a little warning "might not function 100%". Https Everywhere works with a whitelist. Can't find how-to real quick, but this rulsets page might help. I'm not aware of any preference or setting in the browser. You can't send a header "https, ...


3

For extracted content from a source, use this HTML: <blockquote cite="http://venue-website/venue-description-page" title="Published title, author, date"> Your extracted content </blockquote> The cite attribute for blockquote content was designed specifically for this use case in the DOM. Google wouldn't be doing their job properly if they ...


3

When you use 301 redirect, you show to Google that current page it's permanently moved to another url. Cannonical is used to prevent penalties by Google for duplicate content. When you use it, the current page exists but shows to google that is "copy" of another "master page" For example I can give you OpenCart product urls, they are like this: ...


2

Too add a bit more info to Binarysurfs answer, if the content on the paginated pages isn't the same as on the first page you are setting the canonical tag too, it often doesn't work as the content on canonicalised pages should be the same as the canonical page. What you might want to do instead of noindexing the paginated pages is using the rel=”next” and ...


2

Replace spaces with hyphens in URL's without a doubt. They are more readable otherwise URL's will be encoded in the browser like:- example.com/category%20name/article%20name.html It's more friendly for search engines and humans like:- example.com/category-name/article-name.html You can accomplish replacing spaces with hyphens by using the php function ...


2

Google takes several things in account to determine how relevant a page is. The most important factors are: Page content Domain name URL name Let's assume that your content and your domain name didn't change. Even your HTML markup is still the same. OLD example.com/category/subcategory.html NEW example.com/category/filter/cat/subcategory.html By ...


2

I would carry on using pagination mark up on both sets of paginated pages. Google introduced the mark up for this specific purpose, it provides a hint to Google that you would like to treat the paginated pages as a logical sequence, thus consolidating their linking properties and usually sending searchers to the first page. If you noindex the paginated ...


2

Each URL on your site has its own PageRank. So http://example.com/?id=344 will have separate PageRank from http://example.com/ and both will have separate PageRank from http://example.com/page.html. In many cases a URL parameter will not cause the page shown to change, or will cause a 404 not found error. Either of those may cause the link juice ...


2

This is one way people canonicalise duplicate product pages on ecommerce and is a valid way to use it. As long as the content on the product page is identical, or a large part of the content is exact and appears on both pages. If the pages are not extremely close in exact words, the canonical designation might be disregarded by search engines. For the most ...


2

For SEO, I would say an id doesn't permit to easy remember the URL for users. Therefore, no matter on which URL you choose; an id in the middle or at the end of an URL doesn't change anything regarding SEO. However, an id in an URL can be very useful in case of you would have two pages with the same URL. This is the case for StackOverflow because the URL is ...


2

The source of your problem can be in html or in javascript, and you cannot control the links that other people put on the net too.. And because he finds a page when making a request for it, it indexes it. I miss some information to give answer with code (using a CMS? Other rules in .htaccess, etc…), but here are some ways : Write a permanent redirect in ...


2

Google recognizes your URLs with parameters and as different because the id is different. I suppose that the product pages have not the same content; therefore, there is no duplicate content between your URLs; thus, you don't need to use the rel="canonical" tags between pages.


2

The canonical tag is enough, as it lets Google know which page should be indexed. It is basically a way of saying "Hey, these pages are extremely similar. Here is the page that should take precedence." Preventing Google from crawling your mobile links will cause more harm than good. Example: If a mobile user shares a mobile link to your website, you don't ...


2

When you redirect your example.com to www.example.com, using a 301 redirect, all your existing link-juice will also transfer to the www version. But if you're going to redirect it using a 302, that may block link-juice from flowing to www version. So redirect your site without the www to the one with the www using a 301 redirect, and also put a canonical ...


2

You can do in different ways: Dedicate a page to Cheapest all inclusive resorts and differentiate content from the "parent" page. So, modify your copy (concentrate on the "cheapest" aspect instead of generic descriptions), use different images, etc. In that way, you don't need to point canonical to anywhere because you have different and specialized ...


1

You think it would be helpful if Bing would at least give a few samples of the suspect pages. But Google does the same sorts of things so don't think it too bad of Bing. It is incumbent upon a site owner to check their links on their sites but that may be too large a task these days with sites growing ever larger and more sophisticated. Here is a tool that ...


1

Your og:url tag is currently: <meta property="og:url" content="http://prodct.info/chromebooks/" /> Should it not be the unique URL of the page? Be sure to test any changes with Webmaster's Structured Data Testing Tool Description of og:url: The canonical URL of your object that will be used as its permanent ID in the graph.


1

One solution would be to not show the rel canonical meta tag when Facebook is crawling the page. Facebook's bot uses a user agent string that contains "facebookexternalhit". If "facebookexternalhit" is in the user agent, then don't show the meta tag. Note that showing different content to a robot is called "cloaking". I haven't seen any evidence that ...


1

Sure, cross-domain is fine. Using .mobi was very popular for a while, other sites just use "m.theirdomain.com", it's essentially up to you. Keep in mind that multiple domains for the same site does increase the maintenance overhead, but that's ultimately your decision.



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