CANONICAL - Duplicate page issue [closed] - seo

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Can someone help me with this problem.
currently google reports that this two link is duplicate.
http://www.ozkidsactivities.com/n/jules-pony-rides-&-mobile-animal-farm/ozkids-36?activityId=1218
http://www.ozkidsactivities.com/n/jules-pony-rides-and-mobile-animal-farm/ozkids-36?activityId=1218
but we already include the canonical tag:
<link rel="canonical" href="/n/jules-pony-rides-and-mobile-animal-farm/ozkids-36?activityId=1218" />
is there a problem with the relative path?
Thanks in advance!

red,
Canonical URL tags can reference the relative path (see Google's guidelines here - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html), however, I'd suggest that it's better and safer to use the absolute URL (i.e., including the protocol and fully-formed hostname) - given that many websites tend to be accessible by numerous hostnames (alternative domains, test/development environments with exposed URLs, etc.) it's best to reference the correct absolute URL in order to avoid any adverse incorrect canonisation if/when search engines discover these URLs.
It looks like you've already fixed your solution, though, as well as solving the problem another way by redirecting the ampersand to the 'and'. Good work!

Related

Does document format change behaviour of Google bot in terms of SEO? Like /path and /path.htm .html .php [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I was told to delete ".html" from web application links in order to be better seen by Google bot. So example.com/path/to/resource.html should be example.com/path/to/resource. I didn't find any document saying that format of the resource, placed in urls, has any influence as such. No matter if it's php, htm, html or any other aspx.
So, how is it? Does omitting the .html, or any other format, make any difference to Google bot?
No not at all. You don't get more or lose ranking because of that. It is not worth the effort.

some way to put noindex and nofollow on the link's comment of the wordpress [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am having many commentators on my site that are placing links, I would like to put noindex and nofollow on all links, i already searched a lot on the internet but didn't find anything, anyone know any function or plugin that can help me?
From http://codex.wordpress.org/Nofollow , WordPress 1.5 and above does this automatically. Maybe the rest of that page will help.
What is your wordpress site? Is it self-hosted by wordpress and you are a free user, or you have installed it on your host? It is very easy, use a javascript for any comment. Details are beyond this comment, but it is very easy to search for any tag on the inserted text and change the desired attribute.

A little bit of SEO: how to make a very simple website prettier in search engine results? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Look, under page title there's a very nice link, including categories of the website.
I really do want that thing on my website. The problem is the syntax of my website:
Main page: index.php
Category: index.php?p=part&id=[ID]
Subcategory: index.php?p=cat&id=[ID]
Article: index.php?p=post&id=[ID]
What should I do? Changing syntax is no good for me, but I'm pretty sure I can do some magic with htaccess RewriteEngine, but it's not going to look much better.
Huge thanks in advance :)
Ooops, almost forgot. Can I have some kind of guide to a proper sitemap? I already searched for it myself, but every guide offers it's own way to make it, and I'm totally confused.
These breadcrumb links in the SERPS are not only from microdata, but are from the breadcrumb navigation links on the sites pages. (which can indeed be marked up with microdata, but do not have to be) Google will tend to use them if urls are very long in my experience.
More info here:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-site-hierarchies-display-in-search.html
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-LH5eyufqH0#!
and here
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=185417
It's called microdata. You can find the officially supported microdata at schema.org. Keep in mind that using microdata does not guarantee your search results will be affected.

Canonical Links - Same file on server [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am using Microsoft's IIS SEO analyzer, and it keeps showing me a warning that I have a canonical link error because I'm storing the same file in different folders on the server. Doing this makes my file structure much more organized that linking different folders together. Should I just ignore this or is this a big deal for SEO?
Where files are located on your server has nothing to do with SEO. There is no way for search engines to know where files are actually located and a page's URL dos not necessarily indicate its location on the server. What does matter is whether two URLs pull up the same page. That would be duplicate content and a problem for your SEO efforts.

Adding short-urls to a blog, makes SEO better or worse? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
HI,
I have a simple blog with a nice friendly-URLs and Google indexes pages as well.
Now i'm going to add a short-url to each post.
So for a sample post, the main URL and link is: www.blog.com/articles/this-is-a-sample.html
Also this page is accessible by www.blog.com/:157
Does this short-url and links refers by it decrease my page rank? or increases? or nothing special?
Best Regards,
AHHP
If you're going to do that, remember to add
<link rel="canonical" href="www.blog.com/articles/this-is-a-sample.html" />
To this-is-a-sample.html, so whatever access www.blog.com/:157 will look at the canonical tag referring to this-is-a-sample.html and won't penalize your site for having duplicated content.
Doing this won't increase or decrease your page rank.
Read more about the canonical tag here:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
Expanding Ben's answer, why do not you take a look at how StackOverflow handle this?
Take your own thread for example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4479453/adding-short-urls-to-a-blog-makes-seo-better-or-worse is resemble "nice friendly-URLs" of your blog, while https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4479453/ is the shorter one, similar to your www.blog.com/:157
Now if you open this source of this page, you should see rel="canonical" that Ben elaborated above. This tag makes sure that search engines will index the assigned one. Moreover, it is advised that those two links should be clickable, so that users can bookmark the canonical one. Do not miss this thread: Why do some websites add "Slugs" to the end of URLs?, it is not tackle your question, yet it gives your deeper insight on your understanding.