Where to point canonical for m-dot site in the wake of Mobile-First Indexing

[Derek_Hawk]

My client currently use an m-dot URL for their mobile site and while conducting a technical audit for their web properties, we have noticed that their desktop is using a self-referencing rel="canonical" while their mobile m-dot has no rel="canonical" tags. While our initial recommendation is to point the mobile m-dot point to the desktop using a rel="canonical" and the desktop point to the mobile using a rel="alternative," there have been hesitations about mobile first indexing and canonical tags. If Google will use the m-dot for indexing purposes moving forward, is the progressive recommendation to have the desktop point to the m-dot using a rel="canonical" and the m-dot point to the desktop using a rel="alternative" or to maintain the initially stated recommendation?

[Seenlyst]

Hey Derek,

I would stick with the recommendation from Google to have desktop version rel alternate point to the mobile version and mobile version point to the desktop version using the canonical tag. Also, take a look at this documentation from Google:

https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-first-indexing#best-practices

The last line says "Make sure you have the correct rel=canonical and rel=alternate link elements between your mobile and desktop versions." Which mean they suggest you follow their guidelines which you can find on:

https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/separate-urls

I don't really think it's a good idea to risk the site by doing something opposite to the guidelines.

Personally, I would consider updating to a responsive website because it's easier to manage, cost less in long run, less prone to error, able to get the most out of your SEO effort and Responsive design is Google’s recommended design pattern:

https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/#choose_your_mobile_configuration

I hope this answered your question.

Cheers,
Joseph Yap