Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Port Number In Canonical Tag?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
7 replies to this topic

#1 scouseflip

scouseflip

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:North West, England

Posted 07 January 2015 - 09:07 AM

Hi All

 

A site I am now working on uses Sharepoint and the SEO features which allow control over page titles and meta descriptions also inserts canonical tags, but these canonical tags have the port number inserted into the URL, e.g.

 

<link rel="canonical" href="h ttp://www.example.co.uk:80/" />

 

There is no way of stopping this happening without disabling the SEO features entirely and/or creating a custom solution.

 

My question is wherth this could have any adverse impact from an SEO perspective? I should point out that the indexed pages for this site do not show any port number.

 

Any advice would be appreciated,

 

Andy


Edited by scouseflip, 07 January 2015 - 09:07 AM.


#2 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 07 January 2015 - 10:57 AM

 I should point out that the indexed pages for this site do not show any port number.

 

 

There's your answer.



#3 scouseflip

scouseflip

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:North West, England

Posted 07 January 2015 - 11:29 AM

Thanks Jill

 

My concern at just taking that fact as proof that all is well is that I've seen statements in a Matt Cutts blog suggesting Google will ignore canolical tags if there is reason to distrust the content - examples mentioned include:

 

if we think you’re shooting yourself in the foot by accident

 

 

My understanding of the canonical tag is that it is used to identify the primary URL for a page of content, where multiple versions could exist. If the instructions on this site are to use a URL that includes a port number might Google interpret that as "shooting yourself in the foot"?

 

Obviously I don't want the tags to be ignored entirely!



#4 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 08 January 2015 - 09:09 AM

port 80 IS the default for HTTP in any case.



#5 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 08 January 2015 - 10:34 AM

 If the instructions on this site are to use a URL that includes a port number might Google interpret that as "shooting yourself in the foot"?

 

 

Yes, they might. But you said they're not. 

 

Is this something you were wondering if you should implement or something that they've already had implemented for quite some time?

 

If it's a new thing, then no, I wouldn't implement it. But if it's been in place and obviously not causing any problems (by your own admission) then surely it's a good idea to leave well enough alone.



#6 scouseflip

scouseflip

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:North West, England

Posted 08 January 2015 - 12:23 PM

Thanks for this, it was implemented in November last year as part of a full site redesign and build on a new platform.

 

The changeover has been a smooth one and the sites indexing has not been adversly affected so I am confident that there is no issue as it stands. BUT there is very little risk of canonicalisation at the moment so if Google was ignoring the tags I would not have any way to tell.

 

The nature of the site means that it is likely that new functionality will be added such as filtering of results, and this of course could lead to canonicalisation. If that happens and Google ignores the tags then that could hurt their organic search perfromance - this is my concern anyway.

 

At this point I have advised the owners that it is not a problem at the moment, but it should be kept in mind as they develop the site in future.



#7 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 08 January 2015 - 01:17 PM

 

 

 and this of course could lead to canonicalisation

 

Lead to canonicalisation? ????

 

Nothing "leads" to it, setting a URL as 'canonical' is a method of dealing with accidental or unintentional duplication. 



#8 scouseflip

scouseflip

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:North West, England

Posted 09 January 2015 - 06:47 AM

Thanks for the correction, think I need to brush up on the terminology!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
 
No new posts or registrations allowed.