Hot answers tagged

11

URLs that differ in case in the query string are different URLs to search engines. They are not considered equal and would need canonical tags or redirects to tell search engines which you prefer. Different parts of the URL are different in terms of case sensitivity: Protocol (http) -- case insensitive Host name (example.com) -- case insensitive Path ...


10

Spaces in URLs should be encoded. That would eliminate foo abc.jpg as the canonical. Here is a question that addresses how the space should be encoded: In a URL, should spaces be encoded using %20 or +? Spaces may only be encoded as a + in the query string portion of the URL, so that eliminates the foo+abc.jpg as the canonical. Your canonical URL ...


4

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: ...


4

Yes, all parts of URL after the domain name are case sensitive. Also, query string case is important not just for search engines but it may be important for your server as well. You may have the following download link: http://example.com?download=/myVideos/CaseSensitiveVideo.mpeg


3

My view would be that it doesn't matter for SEO because I'd be noindexing these pages anyway. Google doesn't want to index your search results in its search results, and it's a great way to get flagged for duplicate content. Concentrate on SEO for the actual content pages and do whatever's best for the user experience for these kinds of category pages.


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

It is a confusing state of affairs, but here are some pointers: Don't use the canonical tag in the way you were thinking. Content translated into several languages is not duplicate content. So you don't want to be pointing /fr/ --canonical--> /en/ at all. Use rel="alternate" hreflang="en" instead. Use canonical within a given language to account for ...


2

Duplicate content is no longer determined in a linear fashion. Today, duplicate content is determined using a semantic scoring method so that near duplicate content will still be seen as duplicate. This is because spammers would simply rearrange the content to avoid content as being flagged as duplicate. As well, n-gram phrase recognition is used to ...


2

There's nothing to worry about here, since http://example.com and http://example.com/ are the same URL. The useragent has to include a path in the HTTP request (as per RFC 2616), so what it sends to the server will be GET / in either case. If you add the verbose flag to CURL this is quite easy to verify: $ curl -v http://example.com * Rebuilt URL to: ...


2

We've recently had advice on best practice for a very similar structure. Canonical: Canonical shouldn't be shared across languages, but used within a language. For instance, your Masai homepage would have a canonical tag of: https://www.domain.com/mas But the canonical for your German homepage would be: https://www.domain.com/de x-default: ...


2

What happens if your configuration will be detected by a search engine: Mixing canonical links and noindex will mostly lead to search engines ignoring your canonicals. This may lead to duplicate content issues if you also have canonicalized dynamic URLs or alike. Without the canonicals being respected properly the search engines will decide which url is ...


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 ...


2

Setting the correct canonical URL in the link element should be sufficient (although you might need to verify these "non-existent" subdomains in Google Search Console?), however, it would be preferable to set a 301 redirect which will catch users as well and prevent them linking to the wrong domain, etc. This sort of redirect can be (should be) included as ...


2

Two pages should use the same canonical URL only if the contents of the pages are substantially the same. In your case, it doesn't sound like any of your proposed pages will have the same content. venues for Boston vs Boston-region. There will be some overlap, but won't the region page have many more on it? If users care enough about the distinction, ...


2

you shouldn't set your canonical to the first, but to the current page, like big G said.


2

It is not hurting rankings to show up twice in the search results. It just means that you have two or more pages that Google thinks are relevant for the search term. Combining pages does not usually significantly increase the ranking power of the page. More pages with quality content on your site are much more likely to attract links which help your site ...


1

As Google don't appear to mention canonical images in their guidelines, I'd assume it is not going to be an SEO issue and not bother. The worst that I've seen happen to a page when no canonical tag is set is simply that Google pick the wrong URL as canonical and push the other one down the listings. If images were treated in a similar fashion and they ...


1

No, this isn't the right way to to it. Why don't you use "Pretty URL" as your targeted URL and redirect/put canonical on the old url?


1

Short answer Yes. The difference between the two as clearly pointed by this article: 301 – Hey, Search Engines: My page is no longer here, and has permanently moved to a new page. Please remove it from your index and pass credit to the new page. Canonical – Hey, (most) Search Engines: I have multiple versions of this page (or content), please ...


1

It sounds like you're trying to have /primary1 & /alt1 both indexed with the same content. This will appear to search engines as duplicate pages and have a negative effect on your ranking. Without fully understanding what you're doing, it sounds like you just want both URLs accessible, so you'd be better off setting the canonical for /alt1 to point to ...


1

A canonical tag and a 301 redirect are two very different things. A <link href="...." rel="canonical" /> tag basically tells search engines "if someone is looking for the content on this page, use the URL ...". A 301 redirect tells search engines AND browsers "Hey, the page you're looking for has moved permanently to the URL at ....". Consider you ...


1

There are several questions to answer here: What's the best way for me to take care of this situation and avoid wasting Google's crawl budget and also let my pages get the most of the weight from authority pages? As you say the parameters do not create millions of new URLs. So it would be okay to let Google crawl them. Your Canonicals do the rest of ...


1

Canonical tag won't help you in this situation because you don't want to boost the brand's main website. In order to boost the re-seller websites I would recommend that you add a section in the admin to allow them to add 500-600 words for each page on each website (even if they are selling the same products, different people will write the descriptions ...


1

I would ask what the impact would be if you do not use the canonical tag? Answer? Disastrous. Since you have duplicated content, then you are effecting your search performance. There is a penalty in the SERPs for this. You will not know otherwise. It is likely that the penalty exists for you now and you may not realize it assuming that this condition has ...


1

You can use rel=canonical on the other sites since Google supports cross-domain canonical tag. However, your clone sites will not be indexed for those pages which kind of defeats the purpose. Best option is to always have original content on your sites and custom tailor each for your target audience. To have a successful website you need to provide value to ...


1

The canonical link type is not supported by all user agents, and even if a user agent supports the canonical link type, it may decide to ignore it, so users would end up on the "wrong" URL. So a 301 redirect is preferable. This is also the recommendation of the canonical RFC: Before adding the canonical link relation, verification of the following is ...


1

You definitely want the canonical to point to the URL where the content exists and is served, that is the point of the canonical. You also should consider the pros and cons of re writing the URL suffix via htaccess. If the rewrite is for SEO purposes then you should probably leave the page as HTML, even if the rest of the site is asp out other tech. Google ...


1

To answer your question, "Yes", Google will ignore the canonical tag. However, this isn't an ideal situation at all and will only cause you trouble in the long run. If you have no way to edit / remove the canonical tags, why not use one of the standard default file names (index, default, home) always and then you can maintain that file URL for online ...


1

This is a good resource explaining what you need to do with either escaped fragments or using the pushState and history API in HTML5 to provide content to search engines. I do want to note that both Google and Bing do crawl javascript via pushState and escaped fragments might possibly be deprecated in the coming months by Google. So to be safe, move over ...


1

resulting in multiple rel=canonical links on the same page pointing to different galleries That is not allowed. Only one canonical per page. If you use hashbangs, then Google will call the escaped fragment version of the page to your server. It should serve the HTML version of the page with the corresponding gallery. Another solution is to add a ...



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