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.


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

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 ...


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

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 ...


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

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

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

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

Having capital letters in your URL is perfectly fine. It doesn't affect the performance of your website and shouldn't cause any problems for search engines. I can only guess that whomever told you it could cause 404 errors meant that if someone typed in the URL manually and didn't use capital letters that the page would not be found. That's true but the ...


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.


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. ...


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

Having mix case URLs will cause some 404 errors: Users that type in URLs typically do not capitalize. Some badly configured bots lowercase all URLs before fetching them. (I worked on a site with mixed-case URLs and we saw this occasionally.) I would recommend putting something in place to handle the visitors that get to the all lower case URL. That ...


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

The fact that these pages may be competing against each other is worrying. rel="canonical" will help you towards that. If you have 3 pages alike for example, and use this in 2 of them, only one will rank. There's many different ways to go about product variations. In my opinion, it would be better to list these 3 products all within one page, for example: ...


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 ...


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

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

You misunderstand some SEO principles: keywords in URLs are not so powerful for SEO than you think URLs must be chosen for users (to remember easily) before SEO Moreover, you can rank on Google for rj onetitle and janeiro onetitle with only one of these URLs. You just need to work SEO of this page. Otherwise, if you have just one of these URLs, it's ...


2

If you have NOINDEX meta tag on your page it is not good idea to put inner page links to it, because this link juice will be lost. Search engines are disabled to index the pages, so neither canonical, nor robots.txt disallow removing will help there, if you have NOINDEX meta tag. The best way I see here it is to ask people to link to your main pages, ...


2

I had the exact same situation ( a webshop), just wait. I also 301 all the uppercased paged to the lowercase version, that might speed things up. Make sure you canonical all pages Header 301 all pages to the lowercase Make sure your sitemap is up to date Make sure all inpage anchors are correct



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