Using http: shorthand inside canonical tag ("//" instead of "http:") can cause harm?

[Kung_fu_Panda]

HI,

I am planning to launch a new site, and shortly after to move to HTTPS. to save the need to change over 5,000 canonical tags in pages the webmaster suggested we implement inside the rel canonical "//" instead of the absolute path, would that do any damage or be a problem?

oranges-south-dakota" />

[donford]

Hi Po,

No, you can not or should not use "relative" paths in the URL. They are not properly indexed you should use the absolute path.

Ref: Google: https://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html

You can use parameters in ASP or PHP to get the path for you.
PHP example: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6768793/get-the-full-url-in-php
ASP example: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/567590/asp-net-absolute-path-of-a-url

Hope this helps,

Don

[Mobilio]

Don,

this isn't relative path. This is "protocol free". So if domain is blah.com HTTP page will have canonical as http://blah.com and HTTPS page will have canonical as https://blah.com.

[donford]

Hi Peter,

That is true, it appears however the question is if it is okay to use relative paths.

In which Google says:

"...Avoid errors: use absolute paths rather than relative paths with the rel="canonical" link element.

Use this structure:  https://www.example.com/dresses/green/greendresss.html
Not this structure: /dresses/green/greendress.html).."

REF: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en

I always side on the better to be safe side of things.

Cheers,

Don

[Mobilio]

I agree,

you should avoid them at all.