Search Results

Search found 19385 results on 776 pages for 'canonical link'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/776 | 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

  • 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

  • Apache 2 Symbolic link not allowed or link target not accessible

    - by djechelon
    While the title of this question matches an already asked question, in my case I already set Options +FollowSymLinks. The setup is the following: my hosting setup includes htdocs/ directory that is the default document root for HTTP websites and htdocs-secure that is for HTTPS. They are meant for sites that need a different HTTPS version. In case both share the same files I create a link from htdocs-secure to htdocs by ln -s htdocs htdocs-secure but here comes the problem! Log still says Symbolic link not allowed or link target not accessible: /path/to/htdocs-secure Vhost fragment Header always set Strict-Transport-Security "max-age=500" DocumentRoot /path/to/htdocs-secure <Directory "/path/to/htdocs-secure"> allow from all Options +FollowSymLinks </Directory> I think it's a correct setup. The HTTP version of the site is accessible, so it doesn't look like a permission problem. How to fix this? [Add] other info: I use MPM-itk and I set AssignUserId to the owner/group of both the directories

    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

  • How do I create a symbolic link to a UNC Path in Windows XP

    - by Sebas
    I have a workstation with Windows XP and I need to make a symbolic link or mount a UNC Path like a local Drive. I need the same behavior that produces M-Daemon tools when you mount an .iso File but with a remote directory. This is because I have a software client that perform several task but only with local drives and directorys. The remote UNC path is a NAS server, thats the why I need to perform all the tasks from a workstations.

    Read the article

  • Symbolic link not allowed or link target not accessible

    - by TK Kocheran
    I can't seem to get a symlink working in my Apache VirtualHost, no matter what I try and I see the following error in the error log: Symbolic link not allowed or link target not accessible: /var/www/carddesigner I can browse the actual symlink from Linux with no problems whatsoever: $ ls -l /var/www | grep "carddesigner" lrwxrwxrwx 1 rfkrocktk rfkrocktk 64 2011-02-28 16:52 carddesigner -> /home/rfkrocktk/Documents/Projects/Work/carddesigner/build/main/ Additionally, I've made sure that the my VirtualHost allows the FollowSymLinks option: /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/000-localhost: <VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80> ServerAdmin ########## DocumentRoot /var/www <Directory /> Options FollowSymLinks AllowOverride None </Directory> <Directory /var/www/> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks MultiViews AllowOverride None Order allow,deny allow from all </Directory> ScriptAlias /cgi-bin/ /usr/lib/cgi-bin/ <Directory "/usr/lib/cgi-bin"> AllowOverride None Options +ExecCGI -MultiViews +SymLinksIfOwnerMatch Order allow,deny Deny from all </Directory> ErrorLog /var/log/apache2/error.log # Possible values include: debug, info, notice, warn, error, crit, # alert, emerg. LogLevel debug CustomLog /var/log/apache2/access.log combined Alias /doc/ "/usr/share/doc/" <Directory "/usr/share/doc/"> Options Indexes MultiViews FollowSymLinks AllowOverride None Order deny,allow Deny from all Allow from 127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0 ::1/128 </Directory> RewriteEngine On RewriteLog "/var/log/apache2/mod_rewrite.log" RewriteLogLevel 9 </VirtualHost> I can't seem to find any other configuration files that seem to override this and/or prevent symlinks from being loaded. Any ideas? Here are my permissions on the actual referenced files: $ ls -l ~/Documents/Projects/Work/carddesigner/build/main total 12 drwxrwxrwx 5 rfkrocktk rfkrocktk 4096 2011-02-28 16:11 advanced drwxrwxrwx 2 rfkrocktk rfkrocktk 4096 2011-02-28 16:10 core drwxrwxrwx 2 rfkrocktk rfkrocktk 4096 2011-02-28 16:10 simple Seems like the permissions are good to go, right?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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