Msg#: 4641397 posted 9:31 pm on Feb 3, 2014 (gmt 0)
I have the canonical tags on all pages and I don't believe it hurts me. I don't have much in the way of images, but I do have some pretty severely spiky traffic (serving up 750k pageviews over about 12 hours, one day a year, on each of six sites) and for the past two years, server load has not been an issue - and I know this because my hosting company watches it like a hawk (having been surprised when I first moved my sites over to them, ork ork)
All of which is to say, you might not need the h parameters, and might want to consider transitioning out of it. It'll make your life a lot easier when dealing with search engines.
Msg#: 4641397 posted 12:28 am on Feb 4, 2014 (gmt 0)
I have the canonical tags on all pages and I don't believe it hurts me.
I second that - I use rel=canonical on pages that have the same URL as an insurance and I have seen no problems.
It also seems you should be OK specifying canonical without ?h= parameter even though you are not linking to such URL on your site - the fact that the page will be returned when Google requests the URL specified as canonical seem to be enough (bold emphasis mine):