Support » Plugin: The SEO Framework » Why There’s no Canonical Set for blog pages?

  • Resolved swagatam1975

    (@swagatam1975)


    Hi,
    Thanks for this great plugin!

    Yesterday I tried it and it looked good on my site, however I had to replace it back with yoast when I saw that the blog sub-pages did not have a canonical set!

    The sub-pages are supposed to have canonical pointing to the homepage, right? But your plugin did not do that.

    A clarification will be much appreciated!

    Best Regards

    • This topic was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by swagatam1975.
Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi there ๐Ÿ™‚

    There should always be a canonical URL outputted by The SEO Framework (unless it’s a BuddyPress page).

    The canonical URL should point to the intended page displayed. It tells crawlers whether they’re on the right page or not.

    So, the canonical URL should point to the current paginated page, and pagination links will tell crawlers whether there’s a “previous” or “next” page.

    Now, there’s a known bug where blog pages always point to the main blog page, like Yoast SEO seems to do. This only happens when the blog page isn’t the home page.

    Google enumerates it as the most common mistake, here:
    https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html

    Specifying a rel=canonical from page 2 (or any later page) to page 1 is not correct use of rel=canonical, as these are not duplicate pages. Using rel=canonical in this instance would result in the content on pages 2 and beyond not being indexed at all.

    They suggest pointing the URL to a “view all” page; but, that’s not supported within WordPress by default. We could add support for this, but it’ll cause performance issues.

    Here’s a more highlighted explanation on this issue, where they exemplify using pagination within the canonical URL:
    https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html

    Hi Sybre Waaijer,

    Thanks very much for your prompt reply.

    I am really sorry, I mistakenly said blog page (homepage).

    I actually meant the Category pages(Taxonomy).

    I have my category indexed and as per the rules its sub pages must point to the 1st page through a canonical URL. I could not find this feature when your plugin was activated.

    Also I could not find how the %%page%% parameter could be added at the end of the category page metas to avoid duplicate issue if Google ignored the canonical setting, and it does appear that often Google ignores the canonical URL and shows duplicate issues in webmaster tools for taxonomy.

    Please correct me if I am wrong or please enlighten me if there’s any relevant feature that I might have missed to activate in your plugin. And alternatively is there any option in your plugin to keep the taxonomy deindexed?

    Again, I am so sorry for creating all the confusion.

    I greatly appreciate your prompt support, and the effort that you have put to make your plugin one of the best!

    Warm Regards
    Swagatam

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by swagatam1975.
    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi Swagatam,

    There was no confusion ๐Ÿ™‚ To rectify: What I wrote applies to all paginated pages, including terms and taxonomies.

    To reiterate:

    The canonical URL should point to the intended page displayed. It tells crawlers whether theyโ€™re on the right page or not.

    So, the canonical URL should point to the current paginated page, and pagination links will tell crawlers whether thereโ€™s a โ€œpreviousโ€ or โ€œnextโ€ page.

    Google doesn’t ignore the canonical setting, and it completely complies with the pagination. Even if the pagination tags are omitted, Google can discover it to be paginated automatically, regardless.

    Even with all the tags correctly displayed, it can take time for Google’s parser to “connect the dots”. So they’ll display warnings precautionarily in their Search Console, which you can generally ignore as they’ll resolve automatically.

    So, there’s no need to apply patches to the wrong places.

    Now, TSF automatically enforces pagination output on the titles. So, there’s no need for %%page%% anywhere.

    Please keep in mind that you need to write your website for your (potential) visitors, not for robots. Google also tries to be the best search/answer machine, and will, therefore, try to point users to quality content; taxonomies generally don’t fall into that category (pun not intended).

    I hope this clears things up ๐Ÿ™‚ Cheers!

    Thanks so much Sybre for this detailed explanation,

    It has indeed clarified everything regarding canocalization.

    I have switched back to SEO Framework, I have kept the default setting as is, except a couple of things which are as follows:

    1) I have installed a separate plugin for generating sitemap.
    2) I have preferred keeping the archive pages indexed by unchecking the option which says:
    “Apply noindex to every second or later archive page?”

    I am interested to index the category pages since I have added a unique descriptions to them and I feel they will be quite useful for the readers to select the most suitable article as per their choice ๐Ÿ™‚

    I would appreciate if you could confirm whether these are OK, or not recommended?

    I am truly grateful for your time and valuable suggestions.

    I look forward to your response!

    Warm Regards
    Swagatam

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by swagatam1975.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by swagatam1975.
    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi Swagatam,

    What you’ve set up is OK ๐Ÿ™‚

    Keep in mind that other sitemap plugins won’t listen to the index settings of individual posts. So, that might cause some issues when you decide to enable noindex for one.

    That said, if there are any issues related to these settings, Google’s Search Console will be able to notify you about this.

    I believe your questions have been answered, including the original topic question. So, I’m marking this as resolved. If you have any more questions, then feel free to open a new topic ๐Ÿ™‚ Have a great weekend!

    Thanks so much Sybre, for this amazing support and for solving all my doubts, you too have a great weekend!!

    Hi there, I recognize your points about taxonomies:

    Please keep in mind that you need to write your website for your (potential) visitors, not for robots. Google also tries to be the best search/answer machine, and will, therefore, try to point users to quality content; taxonomies generally donโ€™t fall into that category (pun not intended).

    Some people use archive pages as valuable content, swagatam1975 mentioned above. Others, for whatever reason, may prefer the taxonomy pages be hidden or difficult to find. To that end, is there a setting in the SEO Framework plugin that will allow me to no-index archives, like I’ve done with the Yoast plugin? I’m interested in making the switch and I’m feeling out each of the features I use in Yoast currently.

    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi there @dsb264!

    Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. Even I am facing some shortcomings, which is good news: I am forced to implement, use, and polish them ๐Ÿ˜‰

    As for the robots settings: (CPT) terms, like categories and tags, yes. CPT archives, not yet.
    Feel free to install the plugin on a test site to see if it fits your purpose.

    If you have more questions, feel free to open a new topic, so we won’t bother others ๐Ÿ™‚

Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • The topic ‘Why There’s no Canonical Set for blog pages?’ is closed to new replies.