Comments on: Top 3 Search Engines Unite on Canonical URL

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:32:31 +0000

Sounds like a positive step. Hope it works

By: Akupunktur

Akupunktur — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:40:15 +0000

Dr.Kamil Tuzgöl Akupunktur | Akupunktur; vücutta belirli noktalara iğne batırmak suretiyle

By: Murthy

Murthy — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:33:33 +0000

Good idea. Search Engine’s crawlers did not indexing same web page but different Urls. But, what is the major different between canonical and 301 redirects?

By: overtime2009

overtime2009 — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:22:14 +0000

Good idea.

By: Steve Constable

Steve Constable — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:57:40 +0000

I study CSS2 and that “canonical rel” is totally new to me. Is it a specification of CSS3? If so they can I use it now? I have been using link all the time. Not this canonical. That’s guru talk right there.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:12:04 +0000

Important! If you’re going to do this – for the love of God please set your canonical version to NOT have an unneccessary “www.” prefix. It just makes links longer, takes longer to tell someone about, and takes longer to type. Not to mention making it less likely to fit in a tweet ;)

http://no-www.org/

By: Jag SEO Follow

Jag SEO Follow — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:41:49 +0000

Nice idea to avoid mass duplicate contents

By: Todd Heim

Todd Heim — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:34:32 +0000

From Yahoo: “The tag will be treated similarly to a 301 redirect, in terms of transferring link references and other effects to the canonical form of the page.”

I hope google treats it that way too… then the need for no-follow PR sculpting goes away for many sites!

I’ll probably be testing this over the next month…

By: Toivo Lainevool

Toivo Lainevool — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:36:48 +0000

Just a little nitpick here – the tag is not used, its been around for a long time and used for things link stylesheets and rss feeds. The new part is the “canonical” part in the “rel” attribute.