The Moz Q&A Forum

    • Forum
    • Questions
    • My Q&A
    • Users
    • Ask the Community

    Welcome to the Q&A Forum

    Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

    1. SEO and Digital Marketing Q&A Forum
    2. Categories
    3. Intermediate & Advanced SEO
    4. Attribution of port number to canonical links...ok?

    Attribution of port number to canonical links...ok?

    Intermediate & Advanced SEO
    3 3 939
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as question
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • 26ryan
      26ryan last edited by

      Hi all

      A query has recently been raised internally with regard to the use of canonical links. Due to CMS limitations with a client who's CMS is managed by a third party agency, canonical links are currently output with the port number attributed, e.g.

      example.com/page:80

      ...as opposed to the correct absolute URL:

      example.com/page

      Note port number are not attributed to the actual page URLs. We have been advised that this canonical link functionality cannot be amended at present. My personal interpretation of canonical link requirements is that such a link should exactly match the absolute URL of the intended destination page, my query is does this extend to the attribution of port number to URLs. Is the likely impact of the inclusion of such potentially incorrect URLs likely to be the same as purely incorrect canonical links.

      Thanks

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • OlegKorneitchouk
        OlegKorneitchouk last edited by

        My guess is that the port number version of the URL is what will start appearing in SERPs.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:%22:8080%22

        I would remove the canonical tag if possible.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • Dr-Pete
          Dr-Pete last edited by

          I can't imagine why any CMS would be designed that way or, why, from a coding standpoint, it would be hard to remove. I try not to second-guess third-party providers (because I've been in their shoes), but that sounds like borderline BS to me. "Can't fix it" is far too often "Don't want to fix it".

          My gut feeling is that Google will ignore a standard port 80, and will only index the port if it's non-default or if the entire site (including internal links) is explicitly using the port. By adding that canonical, though, you're definitely sending a mixed signal, and there is risk. I've never seen this actual situation in play, so I can only speculate.

          Is it possible to remove the canonical tags on these pages and using 301-redirects or some other approach? Unfortunately, a lot of this depends on how the pages actually resolve and what other signals are in play. It's a bit tough to tell without looking at the specific site.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote -1
          • 1 / 1
          • First post
            Last post
          • Sitemap - What are the recommendations on the number of links
            zeehj
            zeehj
            0
            3
            68

          • Base href + relative link href for canonical link
            DmitriiK
            DmitriiK
            0
            2
            419

          • If linking to contextual sites is beneficial for SE rankings, what impact does the re=“nofollow” attribute have when applied to these outbound contextual links?
            DonnaDuncan
            DonnaDuncan
            0
            2
            164

          • Rel Canonical Link on the Canonical Page
            Stew222
            Stew222
            0
            4
            248

          • Maximum number of links
            mrdavidingram
            mrdavidingram
            0
            18
            1.4k

          • Removing Canonical Links
            Dr-Pete
            Dr-Pete
            0
            3
            418

          • Can I reduce number of on page links by just adding "no follow" tags to duplicate links
            robertrRSwalters
            robertrRSwalters
            0
            9
            933

          • Is having a canonical tag for the link that IS the canonical a negative thing?
            DanDeceuster
            DanDeceuster
            0
            2
            813

          Get started with Moz Pro!

          Unlock the power of advanced SEO tools and data-driven insights.

          Start my free trial
          Products
          • Moz Pro
          • Moz Local
          • Moz API
          • Moz Data
          • STAT
          • Product Updates
          Moz Solutions
          • SMB Solutions
          • Agency Solutions
          • Enterprise Solutions
          • Digital Marketers
          Free SEO Tools
          • Domain Authority Checker
          • Link Explorer
          • Keyword Explorer
          • Competitive Research
          • Brand Authority Checker
          • Local Citation Checker
          • MozBar Extension
          • MozCast
          Resources
          • Blog
          • SEO Learning Center
          • Help Hub
          • Beginner's Guide to SEO
          • How-to Guides
          • Moz Academy
          • API Docs
          About Moz
          • About
          • Team
          • Careers
          • Contact
          Why Moz
          • Case Studies
          • Testimonials
          Get Involved
          • Become an Affiliate
          • MozCon
          • Webinars
          • Practical Marketer Series
          • MozPod
          Connect with us

          Contact the Help team

          Join our newsletter
          Moz logo
          © 2021 - 2026 SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company. All rights reserved. Moz is a registered trademark of SEOMoz, Inc.
          • Accessibility
          • Terms of Use
          • Privacy