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
I think you've mixed up lot of things here. There are several problems with your website's pagination structure.
By putting rel="canonical" in the paginated pages, you are telling google to show the nopaging page in the search results. If you don't want that, you need to remove the rel="canonical" tag. What is happening in your current structure is on one ...
In most cases the canonical link type could be used in place of 301 redirects,
but 301 redirects are almost always preferable.
From the canonical RFC (bold emphasis mine):
Before adding the canonical link relation, verification of the following is RECOMMENDED:
For HTTP, permanent HTTP redirects ([…]), the traditional strong indicator that a ...
This is incorrect. This should be a link element, not a meta element. For example:
<link rel="canonical" href="https://exdox.com">
The type and title attributes in this context are irrelevant.
Is “site:” returning pages that would not otherwise be ...
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 ...
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:
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:
No canonical links are not required if 301 redirects are working to the correct page(s), however, it should be noted that using canonical links is considered a best practice.
Canonical links are a great 'fall-back' should mod_rewrite behaviour become undesirable or stop working completely, this can often occur when upgrading Plesk, Cpanel or Apache. In ...
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 ...
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 ...
I don't believe so. In this case, the most important part that differentiates both pages is the words "masters" vs "graduate".
Using canonical you are basically telling google that you prefer one over the other, but they are not exactly similar, while with a lot of similar content, they are for 2 different programs.
Since 60% is similar, I would say tweak it ...
1st of all, posts are displayed newest first so rel="next" for
previous posts is not too intuitive, to say the least. Wolud it be
more useful if it were rel="prev" for older entries?
rel="next" specifies the next item of a logical sequence, it does not mean "the newer published posts", but "the next page of this series of pages", which in this context ...
Use noindex to keep pages out of Google’s index
The only correct way to keep results out of Google’s index is to use noindex.
At the risk of being pendantic, Google’s (or any search engine’s) search results are composed of items that have been indexed. Googlebot honors a couple of ways to instruct it to omit a page from its index. If you don’t use these ...
Canonical links will help for page content but they do not help against duplicate titles and meta descriptions. WordPress is notorious for adding duplicate titles and meta descriptions whenever using Pagination.
Google Search Console will nag about this until you make your titles and descriptions unique. You need not write a whole new description or title ...
You don't need to use the title attribute. It doesn't add any functionality.
This is what your canonical tag should look like. Make sure you use the FULL url including the correct http or https protocol. Not relative urls.
<link rel="canonical" href="https://blog.example.com/dresses/green-dresses-are-awesome" />
Here's what Google recommends: https:/...
Hey @WarrenH and @Maximillian Laumeister,
thx for your answers. I found this website: https://www.searchviu.com/en/hreflang-canonical/
and if i understand it. The solution is:
DE URL: ..de/kleidung/tshirt-de-blue
<link rel="canonical" href="...de/kleidung/tshirt-de">
EN URL: ...de/en/fashion/tshirt-en-blue
<link rel="canonical" ...
Yes, it is very important to put a canonical tag on the homepage of your website. It depends on your website URL, If your website URL is https://example.com then your canonical URL should be <link rel="canonical" href="https://example.com" />.
If your website is using www like https://www.example.com then your canonical URL should be <link rel="...
If the other party are benefiting from your article and you benefit from the backlink, then you cannot have the version of the article on your own website as the original.
This does depend on whether your agreement with the other website includes your ability to post this content elsewhere. It's quite common for hosts of guest posts to expect exclusivity. ...
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.
Just the fact that a URL is in the sitemap means that Google is likely to view it as the canonical page. In your sitemap, include only the canonical URL but not the non-canonical versions.
Source: The Sitemap Paradox where Google's John Mueller discusses what Sitemaps are good for and says:
Recognizing preferred URLs for canonicalization (there are ...
Google can understand that content is a series of pages with rel=prev and rel=next
On your site where you have the links pointing to the previous and next page, just inject the above keywords in the anchor tags.
Here's an example:
Make index.htm contain this:
<p>Page 1. The HOME PAGE</p>
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 content....
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 ...
Canonical tags are meant to be used when you have pages with the same (duplicate) content. When you put a canonical tag on each of you pages pointing to the home page, you are telling Google that every one of your pages has the same content as the home page.
Pretty soon Google is going to be indexing only your home page unless you fix that tag. You ...
No, a noindex isn't necessary. The canonical link element should ensure that only the canonical version is returned in search results – so no duplicates – and will benefit from "ranking signals" of the canonicalised (i.e. variant) pages.
No it won't and this strategy died or no longer effective long time ago. It will only create more duplicated copy of the content which is obviously spam related.
And it's like you are chopping your overall content and spread them all over the web which offers no value to the readers it will reach.
Creating unique and fresh content are just one of the main ...
The clue is in the name... whatever is the canonical URL should go in the rel="canonical" element.
The rel="canonial" element, as it's name suggests, contains a reference to the canonical URL. There can only be one canonical URL. Since you have implemented SSL and are redirecting everything to HTTPS then that is now your canonical URL and that is what goes ...
Even with no canonical link tags on any page, pages are likely to get indexed by Google. Many SEO tools incorrectly give that kind of error, so just stay away from such tools. The best SEO tool is Google webmaster search console. If there is any duplicate content on your site then Google search console will notify you about that in HTML improvement reports, ...
I have worked with websites using the approach you are mentioning. Here's my take:
Yes, it will be crawled and indexed (if you have internal links to all pages).
They should be identical if you are telling search engines where the same alternative mobile page is located, and you are using a canonical link from mobile version. They should be as as identical ...