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.


6

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

As you know, in Stack Exchange, edits can be made to the title. By this reason, for a single question, there can be generated as many URLs as titles had the question. Those older edited titles generate obsolete URLs that shouldn't exist and should 301 redirect to the fresh updated one. 301 redirect is better than rel="canonical", because you're avoiding ...


4

Looking at Google's cached versions of the two variants, the non-canonical has one answer (cached 21 Oct) while the canonical has two answers (with the first marked as accepted), (cached 24 Oct). The question and both answers have been edited at various times, too, the second answer as recently as today. My guess is these differences have been enough to ...


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" ...


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

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

Use a 301 redirect to /folder1/page1. This tells the search engines and users the pages have moved so they can update accordingly. In the case of search engines this means making sure all links to the old URLs are credited to the new URL. In the case of users, their bookmarks (if they use them that is). It's also a usability issue (albeit a minor one). ...


4

The redirect is the better solution, as it stops the erroneous URLs ever being linked to or shared, and so should help crawl efficiency (i.e., search engines shouldn't have to crawl multiple non-canonical versions of pages, thereby wasting time that could be spent elsewhere on your site). I'd do your redirects on the server though, if possible. A fairly ...


3

You must not specify canonical on div elements, as the rel attribute is not allowed there and canonical is only defined for link elements (and the HTTP header). So canonical only works on the URI level, therefore it applies to the whole page (or any other resource on that URI). You must not use canonical just because 40% of your content is duplicated. ...


3

My issue is that I thought that for engines to respect canonical tags the content should be largely identical. When you use a canonical URL in your mobile pages, you're essentially telling the Googlebot not to index your mobile pages because the same content appears at the preferred canonical URL. For sites that redirect users to the same content for mobile ...


3

Yes, using rel-canonical for these URLs would be (most of the time) incorrect. RFC 6596 defines: The target (canonical) IRI MUST identify content that is either duplicative or a superset of the content at the context (referring) IRI. This is not the case for your content. If you have a page that lists all products (without pagination), you could use ...


3

Search engine robots don't perform searches on your site directly (i.e., using search forms). In order for them to crawl and index search results, the search parameters would have to be contained within URLs, like: example.com/search/index.php?keywords=fruits example.com/search/index.php?keywords=apple example.com/search/index.php?keywords=banana Then ...


3

Yes, you must use canonical URLs for this content. It is pure duplicate content which exactly is what Google does not want. So you will be required to use conical URLs if you publish this content on your site. Failing to do so will likely result in your site being considered low quality due to its lack of unique content and your whole site will suffer for it ...


3

The reason to use the rel=canonical shouldn't be the term users use to get to the site, but the content. If each page has different content and/or different reason to exist, like index and content, then there is no need for canonical, even more, it's use would be incorrect, semantically speaking. What you should do, for instance, is improve the product ...


3

No, not if their content is identical (or very nearly so), and they all have a canonical link element referencing www.mysite.net. However, that sort of issue happening site wide can be considered a crawl efficiency issue and the canonical link element doesn't really solve that. In your example, a search bot would crawl three pages when it really only needed ...


3

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 ...


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.


2

Search engines might … … find your testing website. … index pages from your testing website. … decide that a page from the real site and the testing site are duplicate copies, so they might only index one of those pages. If you are unlucky, they might decide to index the testing page instead of the real page in some cases (especially, if not all of your ...


2

Several sites that I have come across, including Stackoverflow, perform a 301 redirect when given an "incorrect" slug. The web server for those sites is configured to redirect to a "catch-all" URL should a portion of the URL be missing. In the example you provided: http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/9/incorrect-slug If anything after the ...


2

You should normally always opt to use dash vs underscores in URL's due to the fact that Google treats dash as a true word separator, through technically Google can make sense of both. Matt Cutts explains the difference between how Google interprets underscores and dashes in a URL.


2

To solve this problem, you need to implement URL Canonicalization Many sites make the same HTML content or files available via different URLs. Say you have a clothing site and one of your top items is a green dress. The product page for the dress may be accessible through several different URLs Use 301 redirects, or canonical meta tags as suggested in ...


2

Yes, you can use the meta robots tag, but I would use NOINDEX, FOLLOW so Google can still freely crawl through the site: <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, FOLLOW">


2

If the canonical tag is working correctly, then over the time the sites that have the canonical tag referencing the main site, should drop out of Google's index, leaving just the main canonical tag. How long have you have these sites set up and the canonical defined? It could just be a matter of time now. However you do mention that the "content of these ...


2

Firstly, see the comment on my answer here. If you're not able to reach either the www or non-www URLs for your website, see the second part of my answer here. If you are able to reach both and they return the same content, then proceed with the following. Assuming that you're using IIS (for ASP.net): 1.) Create a 301 redirect from either www.mydomain.com ...


2

This warning is innocuous since IP addresses can serve multiple hosts and are not expected to redirect to one particular domain. Prior to being concerned with this, you should first check if accessing the IP address even returns the same content as your domain. Even if it does however, search engines like Google will not penalize your site for duplicate ...


2

As covered here, a canonical page is the preferred version of a set of pages with highly similar content. When you use a canonical link, you're essentially letting Google know that you have highly similar or identical pages, but of them, the canonical page is the preferred one to index: Adding this link and attribute lets site owners identify sets of ...


2

It's actually very simple. If you have two URLs which display the same content, you need to use canonical URLs. Which URLs is the canonical URL? The one you want Google to list in its search results. In your example, you would have the main search result without the filters being your canonical URL. So /jobs/new-york or /jobs?jobs_position_id=3 would be the ...


2

...the product pages doesn't seem to rank in search engines. Setting a rel="canonical" is unlikely to help your ranking if you aren't currently being ranked already. Setting a rel="canonical" tag informs search engines which of the two (essentially duplicate) pages should appear in search engine results (SERPs). If you don't specify this then the ...


2

Use rel=canonical when you have pages with small variations. I have an eshop for rubber stamps and each stamp can have a different color. Selecting a different color changes the anchor link, which means that it is a slightly different url. I would use rel=canonical in this instance - I really have a single page that has major value to the visitor, the ...



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