<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Canonicalisation issues &#8211; why it&#8217;s bad and how to fix it.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/seo/canonicalisation-issues-why-its-bad-and-how-to-fix-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/seo/canonicalisation-issues-why-its-bad-and-how-to-fix-it/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:45:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: stuartpturner</title>
		<link>http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/seo/canonicalisation-issues-why-its-bad-and-how-to-fix-it/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>stuartpturner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/?p=22#comment-11</guid>
		<description>This is a very interesting post Lisa, I haven&#039;t seen anyone go into as much detail with regards to the canonical tag yet. I&#039;m in two minds about it however, as it seems to just be a fix for a problem that needs resolving either at a site CMS or a code level. 

If you have a site which generates a number of URLs for the same page, this (IMO) shows a need for a CMS which would resolve this issue, or investigation how you can resolve the issue permanently leaving just one page in the index. As you point out 301 is the best way (or if you&#039;re building a site from scratch - don&#039;t duplicate your URLs :P). 

I think that while Google haev introduced this tag to make webmaster&#039;s lives easier, they may have shot themselves in the foot by providing a tag that it is very easy to implement incorrectly. I may be proved wrong though...

@L. Mohan Arun 

&quot;My opinion is that, the canonicalization is something that the search engine spider should be intelligent enough to sort out on its own.&quot;

The fact that the cannot do this is the very reason this tag was created. I&#039;d suggest reading the &#039;futher reading&#039; links provided. It isn&#039;t really just to do with SEO, if you have the kind of duplicate content issue Lisa describes, all those pages will simply be excluded from the search engine&#039;s index. 

If you&#039;d actually read this post you&#039;d know that this comment &quot;...that require webmasters to go in and put in all the canonicalization tags in every page of the site&quot; is somewhat off the mark.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a very interesting post Lisa, I haven&#8217;t seen anyone go into as much detail with regards to the canonical tag yet. I&#8217;m in two minds about it however, as it seems to just be a fix for a problem that needs resolving either at a site CMS or a code level. </p>
<p>If you have a site which generates a number of URLs for the same page, this (IMO) shows a need for a CMS which would resolve this issue, or investigation how you can resolve the issue permanently leaving just one page in the index. As you point out 301 is the best way (or if you&#8217;re building a site from scratch &#8211; don&#8217;t duplicate your URLs <img src='http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> ). </p>
<p>I think that while Google haev introduced this tag to make webmaster&#8217;s lives easier, they may have shot themselves in the foot by providing a tag that it is very easy to implement incorrectly. I may be proved wrong though&#8230;</p>
<p>@L. Mohan Arun </p>
<p>&#8220;My opinion is that, the canonicalization is something that the search engine spider should be intelligent enough to sort out on its own.&#8221;</p>
<p>The fact that the cannot do this is the very reason this tag was created. I&#8217;d suggest reading the &#8216;futher reading&#8217; links provided. It isn&#8217;t really just to do with SEO, if you have the kind of duplicate content issue Lisa describes, all those pages will simply be excluded from the search engine&#8217;s index. </p>
<p>If you&#8217;d actually read this post you&#8217;d know that this comment &#8220;&#8230;that require webmasters to go in and put in all the canonicalization tags in every page of the site&#8221; is somewhat off the mark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Page</title>
		<link>http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/seo/canonicalisation-issues-why-its-bad-and-how-to-fix-it/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Page</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/?p=22#comment-10</guid>
		<description>I have to say I agree with L. Mohan Arun. A search engine with it&#039;s massive indexing power and creaping robots should really be able to establish that:

http://www.vervesearch.com &amp;
http://www.vervesearch.com/index.php OR http://www.vervesearch.com/index.html OR
http://www.vervesearch.com/index.asp

are all the same page. 

Does anyone know why this doesn&#039;t happen? Is it to do with the fact you can have diferent pages as your default document in a folder, so Google is never sure whether this is the case? Surely it could check?

Cheers,
Sam</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say I agree with L. Mohan Arun. A search engine with it&#8217;s massive indexing power and creaping robots should really be able to establish that:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.vervesearch.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.vervesearch.com</a> &amp;<br />
<a href="http://www.vervesearch.com/index.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.vervesearch.com/index.php</a> OR <a href="http://www.vervesearch.com/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.vervesearch.com/index.html</a> OR<br />
<a href="http://www.vervesearch.com/index.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.vervesearch.com/index.asp</a></p>
<p>are all the same page. </p>
<p>Does anyone know why this doesn&#8217;t happen? Is it to do with the fact you can have diferent pages as your default document in a folder, so Google is never sure whether this is the case? Surely it could check?</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Sam</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: L. Mohan Arun</title>
		<link>http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/seo/canonicalisation-issues-why-its-bad-and-how-to-fix-it/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>L. Mohan Arun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vervesearch.com/blog/?p=22#comment-9</guid>
		<description>My opinion is that, the canonicalization is something that the search engine spider should be intelligent enough to sort out on its own. Come to think of it, isnt this the same thing like exact match and broad match in adwords? They just want to create a meme or want to get talked about so they come up with these kinds of things that require webmasters to go in and put in all the canonicalization tags in every page of the site so they can show they did this and that for SEO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My opinion is that, the canonicalization is something that the search engine spider should be intelligent enough to sort out on its own. Come to think of it, isnt this the same thing like exact match and broad match in adwords? They just want to create a meme or want to get talked about so they come up with these kinds of things that require webmasters to go in and put in all the canonicalization tags in every page of the site so they can show they did this and that for SEO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

