Broken canonical link errors

[GhillC]

Hello,

Several tools I'm using are returning errors due to "broken canonical links". However, I'm not too sure why is that.

Eg.
Page URL: domain.com/page.html?xxxx
Canonical link URL: domain.com/page.html
Returns an error.

Any idea why? Am I doing it wrong?

Thanks,
G

[Roman-Delcarmen]

A canonical tag (aka "rel canonical") is a way of telling search engines that a specific URL represents the master copy of a page. Using the canonical tag prevents problems caused by identical or "duplicate" content appearing on multiple URLs. Practically speaking, the canonical tag tells search engines which version of a URL you want to appear in search results.

So if you have a page such as

www.mywesbite.com you should have a canonical tag on that page like this one
on your header

So you should check your source code to check if the URL is ok or it's missing

These are some links you should read

• https://yoast.com/rel-canonical/
• https://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization

Hope this information will answer your question

[BlueprintMarketing]

If you need anyone to back up what Roman said he's exactly right.

You need to add the canonical to your site so it is self-referencing I would not add it to any URLs that have parameters/query strings or any URL that you want to be in Google's index.

In your example you show the same page twice I added https:// just to make it a full URL for the example and please do that when you add the canonical's

With the rel canonical, you're telling Google that your parameter is not something you want to rank for

You want https://domain.com/page.html to rank

** not**

**Page URL: https://domain.com/page.html?xxxx **

So as Roman said you would add a rel canonical like this below. Please keep in mind when you add these you must add HTTP or HTTPS depending on what your site is up for as well as www. or non-www. & always use absolute URLs

For example, search crawlers might be able to reach your homepage in all of the following ways:

• http://www.example.com

• https://www.example.com

• http://example.com

• http://example.com/index.php

• http://example.com/index.php?r...

Cite: https://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization

More references

• https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
• https://moz.com/blog/rel-canonical
• https://varvy.com/rel/canonical.html

I hope that helps,

Tom

[GhillC]

Thanks both.
Though I do believe that I get a good enough understanding of the canonical tag structure.
What I don't understand is why some SEO tools are returning an error with few of these tags.

Here is the page URL:
https://www.domain.com/ae/products/shopby/product-type-accessories.html?___store=en_ae

And here is the canonical tag that returns the error:

As per your comment, I want the URL without the query string to rank and the traffic associated to the URL above to benefit "accessories.html".

At first I thought it was due to "itemprop" which technically should not be combined with a rel attribute (source: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31621308/itemprop-and-rel-attributes-on-same-element)
But since all the pages of the website I'm working on contains canonical tags with both elements and only a handful of them returns a canonical tag error, I guess it comes from something else.

[ThompsonPaul]

Your understanding of canonical tags is correct, GhillC.

If Tools are showing errors for those canonical tags you've listed, then the tools are wrong.

As long as the protocol and subdomain prefix (or not) exactly match and the only difference is the exclusion of the parameters (the "?" and the stuff after it) then the canonicals are correct.

Any tool's reports have to be filtered through your own understanding and knowledge. They often get things wrong. That's on eof the key differences between experienced SEOs and less-experienced. They kow when to question what an automated tool is telling them. So good on ya for questioning the results!

Paul

[BlueprintMarketing]

I would us a different rel="canonical" only url for the canonical & kee the microdata link as just a link. 

I agree it is  probably Just the tool but from what I can see  mixing  microdata & the canonical is not the best way to go.

<link rel="canonical" href="http: example.com="" "=""></link rel="canonical" href="http:>

you want a free way to test  up to 500 pages  https://screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/  like Paul said any  tool can be wrong but it looks like you should not mix the  canonical something  the end Users  can click on

tom

[GhillC]

Great, thanks for your note Paul, I will filter through as you suggest!