Search Results

Search found 2575 results on 103 pages for 'canonical cover'.

Page 1/103 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Multi language site - use of canonical link and link rel="alternate"

  - by julia

  I keep reading everywhere that if you have a multilanguage site, where the same page appears in, say, French and English, then this is considered as duplicate content by google. It is written that using canonical link is the solution, but I do not understand how to use it in this case. Should I: Choose either French URL or English URL to be the canonical (main) one, and where I will place the canonical link? If so, how do I decide which of the two URLs must be canonical? both languages are important to me and I want the content under both languages to be indexed by google and served to the user, depending on the language in which he searches. OR should I place a canonical link on both French and English URLs? If so, then I do not understand the meaning of using the canonical link? In this case would both URLs be indexed, are both of them considered as "important" by google and not duplicates? Also I read that link rel="alternate" can be used to indicate to google that, for example the French URL is the French-language equivalent of the English page. This makes sense and I understand how to use such links, but how are they combined with canonical links? Should I define both the canonical URL AND specify rel="alternate" in both URLs? Could someone help me to clarify this, cause I'm stuck with this and can't seem to find a good-enough explanation in different sources.

  Read the article

• Canonical url for a home page and trailing slashes

  - by serg

  My home page could be potentially linked as: http://example.com http://example.com/ http://example.com/?ref=1 http://example.com/index.html http://example.com/index.html?ref=2 (the same page is served for all those urls) I am thinking about defining a canonical url to make sure google doesn't consider those urls to be different pages: <link rel="canonical" href="/" /> (relative) <link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/" /> (trailing slash) <link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com" /> (no trailing slash) Which one should be used? I would just slap / but messing with canonical seems like a scary business so I wanted double check first. Is it a good idea at all for defining a canonical url for a home page?

  Read the article

• Multisites Network SEO::Can self-referencing canonical tag(rel="canonical") inside article improve google rating?

  - by user5674576

  Hi, Can self-referencing canonical tag(rel="canonical") inside article improve google rating? The Case: Company have 40 sites with original content and 1 main site with some of 40 sites articles. Main site have rel="canonical" in each article Should article in original site have also rel="canonical" for self-referencing? example: inside main network site(reference to other site):<link href="http://site7.com/article25" rel="canonical" /> inside original network site(self-reference):<link href="http://site7.com/article25" rel="canonical"/> Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• How to handle canonical url changes like Stack Overflow

  - by lulalala

  Stack Overflow sites all have pretty urls which include the question title. In the HTML it also have canonical url for that page. I just found out that when I change the question title, the url is changed immediately. The canonical url is also updated. Does it mean that as long as the page with the old canonical url redirects to the new canonical url, then search engines will update their records of the canonical url as well? Is there anything else that one can actively do to make the url change even more smoother?

  Read the article

• Google indexed the same page under two URLs (despite rel-canonical)

  - by unor

  The Super User question "Playing mp3 in quodlibet displays “GStreamer output pipeline could not be initialized” error" is indexed under two URLs in Google: http://superuser.com/questions/651591/playing-mp3-in-quodlibet-displays-gstreamer-output-pipeline-could-not-be-initia http://superuser.com/questions/651591/playing-mp3-in-quodlibet-displays-gstreamer-output-pipeline-could-not-be-initia/652058 The first one is the canonical one; the corresponding rel-canonical is included in both pages: <link rel="canonical" href="http://superuser.com/questions/651591/playing-mp3-in-quodlibet-displays-gstreamer-output-pipeline-could-not-be-initia" /> Google also indexed http://superuser.com/a/652058, which redirects to the answer: http://superuser.com/questions/651591/playing-mp3-in-quodlibet-displays-gstreamer-output-pipeline-could-not-be-initia/652058#652058 Now, the second URL from above is the same as this one minus the fragment #652058. So Google seems to strip the fragment, which results in exactly the same page under another URL (= containing the answer ID /652058 as suffix), and indexes it, too -- despite rel-canonical and duplicate content. Shouldn’t Google recognize this and only index the canonical variant? And what could be the reason why Stack Exchange includes the answer ID in the URL path, and not only in the fragment (resulting in various URL variants for the same page)?

  Read the article

• Canonical redirection meta tag [duplicate]

  - by sankalp

  This question already has an answer here: How to use rel='canonical' properly 2 answers There are two pages in my website with the same content; only the URL's are different: www.websitename.com and www.websitename.com/default.html. Someone suggested that I should add canonical tags to avoid them being considered as duplicate content. Where should I add canonical tags and why?

  Read the article

• Is there a canonical source supporting "all-surrogates"?

  - by user61852

  Background The "all-PK-must-be-surrogates" approach is not present in Codd's Relational Model or any SQL Standard (ANSI, ISO or other). Canonical books seems to elude this restrictions too. Oracle's own data dictionary scheme uses natural keys in some tables and surrogate keys in other tables. I mention this because these people must know a thing or two about RDBMS design. PPDM (Professional Petroleum Data Management Association) recommend the same canonical books do: Use surrogate keys as primary keys when: There are no natural or business keys Natural or business keys are bad ( change often ) The value of natural or business key is not known at the time of inserting record Multicolumn natural keys ( usually several FK ) exceed three columns, which makes joins too verbose. Also I have not found canonical source that says natural keys need to be immutable. All I find is that they need to be very estable, i.e need to be changed only in very rare ocassions, if ever. I mention PPDM because these people must know a thing or two about RDBMS design too. The origins of the "all-surrogates" approach seems to come from recommendations from some ORM frameworks. It's true that the approach allows for rapid database modeling by not having to do much business analysis, but at the expense of maintainability and readability of the SQL code. Much prevision is made for something that may or may not happen in the future ( the natural PK changed so we will have to use the RDBMS cascade update funtionality ) at the expense of day-to-day task like having to join more tables in every query and having to write code for importing data between databases, an otherwise very strightfoward procedure (due to the need to avoid PK colisions and having to create stage/equivalence tables beforehand ). Other argument is that indexes based on integers are faster, but that has to be supported with benchmarks. Obviously, long, varying varchars are not good for PK. But indexes based on short, fix-length varchar are almost as fast as integers. The questions - Is there any canonical source that supports the "all-PK-must-be-surrogates" approach ? - Has Codd's relational model been superceded by a newer relational model ?

  Read the article

• Canonical links for huge websites

  - by Florin

  Let's say I have 5 products that are identical but the product code, the product color specifications and the product image. The title, meta and description are identical (by the way the color is in a select form). I made 4 products link canonical to the 1 that is the master based on many factors. If the master becomes inactive or without a stock one product from the other 4 will become the new master and the rest will become canonical to it. The question is if that by becomeing master from canonical will the site suffer a penalty from Google or it will work just fine? What will Google think about this strategy?

  Read the article

• When the canonical page itself changes url

  - by lulalala

  This is a continuation of the question: How to handle canonical url changes like Stack Overflow. Say I have the canon url: questions/11/car <---canonically-linked-from--- questions/11/ What will happen if I want to change the canon url to questions/11/car-with-sgx Obviously, questions/11/ will point to the new canon url. But how should the old questions/11/car change to the new one? There are two ways: 301 redirect that to new canon url the old canon url canonically link to the new canon url According to this post: [By using canonical link instead of redirect,] OldPage.html’s rankings will drop over time due to fewer internal links, but the canonical tag won’t make it disappear entirely. It could theoretically remain in their index until one of the following occurs: it is redirected permanently via 301 it returns a 404 for an extended period of time (they will keep checking for a while before dropping a URL) a meta robots “noindex” tag is added If this is true, I really need to use redirect from old canon url to the new canon url, which means I need to keep a log of previous old canon urls of this content, so I know when I can redirect. This is a bit of a hassle to do.

  Read the article

• Using rel=canonical and noindex in a 1-n partners enviroment

  - by Telemako Mako

  We sell a whole site (domain, etc) to partners that create content that is shown together at the main site. What we want to achieve is that the main site copy is the original, but the one that is indexed is the partners copy. We want to do it this way so the search results point to the partner sites but never to the main site while the main site gets all the credit for the links. We are trying setting the main site article with a noindex, follow and a link to the partner article, and in the partner article we have a rel=canonical pointing to the main site article. Are we correct or the noindex at the main site will break the canonical reference?

  Read the article

• Canonical tags for separate mobile URLs

  - by DnBase

  I have a Drupal website serving mobile pages from different urls (starting from /mobile). According to Google recommendations I should use the canonical tag to map desktop and mobile pages. Right now I did this in case I serve the same node (e.g: node/123 and mobile/node/123) 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?

  Read the article

• Should I use nodindex, follow or rel canonical?

  - by webmasters

  I have a site that lists offers, promotions from other websites. Since the offers expire rather quickly I don't save them into my database. I see no point in having a page from 2010 about 30% discount on a certain brand of shoes which isn't availabe anymore. A visitor enters my website; He clicks on the "shoes" category; http://www.mysite.com/shoes/ Here he sees 20 available promotions from different online stores. He clicks on a promotion and gets to a page like this: http://www.mysite.com/shoes/promotions/prada Questions: I use the template promotions.php and list all the promotions. /promotions/prada/ /promotions/otherbrand/ .... What I do is use "noindex, follow" for the links. Is that a good idea? Or should I use rel="canonical" for the promotion page? How do you advise me to handle this from the SEO point of view?

  Read the article

• On which page(s) to add canonical?

  - by user6211

  I have two pages with same content and same meta title and meta description. they also have very simular url: http://www.mysite.com/new-york http://www.mysite.com/new_york I need first link to be "official". To avoid having duplicated pages, i want to add canonical meta tag in header... but on which page? does it have to be on both of them or only on second? On on first? Can you give me some advice please?

  Read the article

• I have permanent connections to Canonical servers, what are they for?

  - by Dan Dman

  After the recent upgrade to 12, I notice permanent connections to canonical servers. Running netstat -tp gives: Foreign Address State PID/Program name mulberry.canonical:http CLOSE_WAIT 6537/ubuntu-geoip-p alkes.canonical.co:http CLOSE_WAIT 6667/python alkes.canonical.co:http CLOSE_WAIT 6667/python Why are there permanent connections and how could I stop this behavior? And if this is intentional, who is responsible? I would like to understand why this was done because to me it seems like a bad idea.

  Read the article

• I have permanent connections to Canonical servers, what are they for and how can I turn them off?

  - by Dan Dman

  After the recent upgrade to 12, I notice permanent connections to canonical servers. Running netstat -tp gives: Foreign Address State PID/Program name mulberry.canonical:http CLOSE_WAIT 6537/ubuntu-geoip-p alkes.canonical.co:http CLOSE_WAIT 6667/python alkes.canonical.co:http CLOSE_WAIT 6667/python Why are there permanent connections and how could I stop this behavior? And if this is intentional, who is responsible? I would like to understand why this was done because to me it seems like a bad idea.

  Read the article

• How to resolve canonical issue of a website hosted in yahoo small business (Shared Hosting)

  - by Vinay

  I have a website http://www.myapp.com hosted in yahoo small business, which is shared hosting and I don't have access to .htaccess file to modify. I called up yahoo team regarding the issue But It cannot be done. (It can be achieved in yahoo stores). Basically I want http://myapp.com and http://www.myapp.com/index.php must be redirected to http://www.myapp.com. So, What is the workaround for this.

  Read the article

• Will a rel=canonical link pointing to a 301 redirect pass less pagerank than one without a 301?

  - by tobek

  On this official Google page about canonical links it says: Can rel="canonical" be a redirect? Yes, you can specify a URL that redirects as a canonical URL. Google will then process the redirect as usual and try to index it. There is no mention that this might dilute the impact of the canonical link. However, Google has made clear elsewhere that 301 redirects do dilute PageRank - roughly as much as a link dilutes PageRank. Is that relevant here? I'm assuming the answer is "no" but I wanted to confirm. Relevant but not duplicate: Does Rel=Canonical Pass PR from Links or Just Fix Dup Content.

  Read the article

• No coverage for runtime with Devel::Cover and ModPerl::Registry

  - by codeholic

  When I'm running Devel::Cover with ModPerl::Registry, I get no coverage info except for BEGIN blocks. When I'm running the same script with Devel::Cover from command line or as a CGI, everything works alright (obviously). How can I make Devel::Cover "see" my code being executed in the runtime? Here's Devel::Cover related stuff in my httpd.conf: MaxClients 1 PerlSetEnv DEVEL_COVER_OPTIONS -db,/tmp/cover_db,silent,1 PerlRequire /var/www/project/startup.pl Here's startup.pl: #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use Apache2::Directive (); use File::Basename (); use File::Find (); BEGIN { # Devel::Cover database must be writable by worker processes my $conftree = Apache2::Directive::conftree->as_hash; my $name = $conftree->{User} or die "couldn't find user in Apache config"; print "user=$name\n"; my $uid = getpwnam($name); defined $uid or die "couldn't determine uid by name"; no warnings 'redefine'; local $> = $uid; require Devel::Cover; my $old_report = \&Devel::Cover::report; *Devel::Cover::report = sub { local $> = $uid; $old_report->(@_) }; Devel::Cover->import; } 1; (As you may see, I made a monkey patch for Devel::Cover since startup.pl is being run by root, but worker processes run under a different user, and otherwise they couldn't read directories created by startup.pl. If you know a better solution, make a note, please.)

  Read the article

• can canonical links be used to make 'duplicate' pages unique?

  - by merk

  We have a website that allows users to list items for sale. Think ebay - except we don't actually deal with selling the item, we just list it for sale and provide a way to contact the seller. Anyhow, in several cases sellers maybe have multiple units of an item for sale. We don't have a quantity field, so they upload each item as a separate listing (and using a quantity field is not an option). So we have a lot of pages which basically have the exact same info and only the item # might be different. The SEO guy we've started using has said we should put a canonical link on each page, and have the canonical link point to itself. So for example, www.mysite.com/something/ would have a canonical link of href="www.mysite.com/something/" This doesn't really seem kosher to me. I thought canonical links we're suppose to point to other pages. The SEO guy claims doing it this way will tell google all these pages are indeed unique, even if they do basically have the same content. This seems a little off to me since what's to stop a spammer from putting up a million pages and doing this as well? Can anyone tell me if the SEO guy's suggestion is valid or not? If it's not valid, then do i need to figure out some way to check for duplicated items and automatically pick one of the duplicates to serve as an original and generate canonical links based off that? Thanks in advance for any help

  Read the article

• is it good to use Laptop keyboard cover and body cover ?

  - by mgpyone

  Currently, I've used a laptop keyboard cover (for Mac), my brother told me that it's not good for your lappy,because of it keeps the laptop heat. is it ? also using the Laptop Plastic Cover. it has any effect on the laptop heat ? I like to get any suggestions, please.

  Read the article

• is it good to use Loptop keyboard cover ?

  - by mgpyone

  Currently, I've used a laptop keyboard cover (for Mac), my brother told me that it's not good for your lappy,because of it keeps the laptop heat. is it ? also using the Laptop Plastic Cover. it has any effect on the laptop heat ? I like to get any suggestions, please.

  Read the article

• Canonical Link as a Way of Fighting Scrapers?

  - by James D

  Hi, Let's say several external sites are scraping/harvesting your content and posting it as their own. Let's also say that you maintain a single unique/permanent URL for each piece of content, so that content aliasing (on your site) is never an issue. Is there any value from an SEO perspective to including a canonical link in your header anyway, such that when your site is "scraped", the canonical indication is injected into whatever site is stealing your content (assuming they harvest the raw HTML rather than going in through RSS etc.)? I've heard different things about the behavior of cross-site canonical links, from "they're ignored" to "behavior undefined" to "it can't hurt" to "sure that's exactly what canonical is intended for". My impression was that canonical was a good way of dealing with intra-site but not necessarily inter-site aliasing. Thanks~

  Read the article

• rel="Canonical": Ranking Benefits ? & specifying for PDF?

  - by Miak

  I think I understand the basic case for using rel="canonical": to tell google which is the preferred URI when the same page/content may be accessed via more than one URI. This helps you avoid duplicate content penalties. But what else does it do? Does it also affect search ranking? i.e. will the page I specify in the canonical be ranked higher than the others? (if all else equal). And in the case of PDF documents, I understand that you can now specify rel="canonical" for them too, using HTTP headers (i.e. in htaccess). Again, this would obviously help avoid dupilcate content penalties if the PDF content is the same as the HTML page or if it can be accessed in more than one place. But does it affect ranking? or are there any other benefits to doing this.

  Read the article

• What kind of support does Canonical provide on a business level?

  - by blade19899

  I was wondering about the support for Ubuntu in general? If a (small/large)business is running Ubuntu, what type of issues does Canonical help out with? examples: if a business is running a windows app, via wine does canonical help out with that when a business is running software that is not installed via the software but via PPA(stable/beta) and or downloaded manually. Some examples apps libreoffice/handbrake/openshot etc... etc... does Canonical give support when those app have issues? when a business is trying to migrate from lotes notes/outlook to thunderbird? sorry if this is a bit vague, but i don't really know much about support... be as detailed possible! Thanks in advanced!!!

  Read the article

• Pagination, Duplicate Content, and SEO

  - by Iamtotallylost

  Please consider a list of items (forum comments, articles, shoes, doesn't matter) which are spread over multiple pages. Different sort orders are supported (by date, by popularity, by price, etc). So, an URL might look like this (I use the query style here to simplify things): /items?id=1234&page=42&sort=popularity /items?id=1234&page=5&sort=date Now, in terms of SEO, I think I should be worried about duplicate content. After all, each item appears at least as many times as there are sort orders. I've seen Matt Cutts talking about the rel=canonical link tag, but he also said that the canonical page should have very similar content. But this is not the case here because page #1 in a non-canonical sort order might have completely different items than page #1 in the canonical sort order. For a given non-canonical page, there is no clear canonical page listing all the same items, so I think rel=canonical won't help here. Then I thought about using the noindex meta tag on all pages with non-canonical sort order, and not using it on all pages with canonical sort order. However, if I use that method, what will happen with backlinks that are going to non-canonical pages -- will they still spread their page rank juice, even though the first page googlebot (or any other crawler) is going to encounter is marked as "noindex"? Can you please comment on my problem and what you think is the best solution? If you think you have a better solution, please consider that 1) I do not want to use Javascript for this, 2) I do not want all the items to be on one page. Thank you.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >