Tag Info

New answers tagged

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 ...


0

I would suggest not doing this. This falls under the category of not specifically prohibited right now, but only until enough people start doing it. There's no reason to do this apart from trying to trick Google. Therefore: don't do it. If you do, it'll catch up with you eventually.


1

Excluding link juice, there might be some benefits if Google decides to display/priviledge dogs2 instead of dogs1 (remember that canonical is a recommendation, not an obligation) for your site in general, but not specifically for dogs1. To put in other words, there might be some indirect benefits for dogs1. However, if you to spend time on optimizing some ...


0

If pages are duplicate content or near duplicate content, then yes, it is recommended to use canonical. But in your case, your objective is to serve a different profile per geographic location. In this case, you should make your pages sufficiently different to not be considered as near duplicate content. If some pages do not reach that level of ...


0

but should I do this for other pages as well that are equivalent but share a different content? For example do I need to map the desktop and mobile homepages even if they don't have the same content at all? Simple answer: no. Why: because they have different content. Canonical is for pages with different URLs and same (or nearly same) content only.


0

If you have 'same' pages translated in different languages, their title and description should be translated too. Otherwise, this will be confusing to users and to search engines too. In other words, the title and description for http://site.lt/oliver-weber-auskarai-symbol-9919 should be in "lt-LT". If you don't use canonical, there is indeed a risk of ...


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.


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.


1

It's not about SEO - using spaces (or other unsafe characters) in a URL is bad practise full stop. The original reason given for this was.... Characters can be unsafe for a number of reasons. The space character is unsafe because significant spaces may disappear and insignificant spaces may be introduced when URLs are transcribed or typeset or ...


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 ...


1

With the two examples posted as there are many paginated pages and you are sorting by variables which change the content in large sections across many pages, so you wouldn't add a canonical tag to the main page, as the sort pages do not contain the same content. Is it okay if the canonical is not an exact duplicate of the content? We allow slight ...


1

There could be many issues. First of all without the real URLs and a lock in your Webmaster Central we could not be sure what the exact issue is. May be you have an wrong implementation of the canonical tag or other problems like, additional noindex, other indexing issues... Beyond that small/fresh/penalized sites will be crawled less often and it actually ...


0

We need to see the real URL's to help you. From what I see it's the same URL, sorted differently. But the p parameter may be a product so the URL's could be two product URL's. Google may simply not have updated their cache of the page to check if the meta descriptions are unique.


1

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 ...


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 ...


2

If you have a one page site you should host the content on the root of the site and not try to stuff more keywords in the URL by using a second page. Use a Title for the Home Page that uses the keywords you are targeting and proper on page SEO such as H1 tags and keyword rich content that is not spammy or written to try to only target the Google Bot. If ...



Top 50 recent answers are included