Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.224.160.42

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & andy langton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Is rel=canonical pointing to a different domain equivalent to 301 redirect?

     
12:29 pm on May 8, 2014 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 17, 2005
posts:15
votes: 0


does anyone know if pointing a rel=canonical on domainx.com to domainy.com would be equivalent of a 301?
1:10 pm on May 8, 2014 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 23, 2003
posts:182
votes: 0


A while back I swapped the URL of a website and submitted a change of address request in WMT, after a few days it had changed. Then after a few months, out of nowhere the old domain had come back into Googles listings and the newer domain had disappeared, despite having a 301 in place and the domain change request in WMT still in place.

After a few weeks of investigating, and numerous phone calls from our client, I had noticed that mixed up in all of that coding was a canonical tag pointing to the old domain (it was very hard to see as I had minified the coding). I changed it to the new domain and voila, the new domain was back within days.

Therefore I think the canonical tag has grown stronger over the last 3-4 months as compared to a 301. I have started to rely on it more often these days.
2:41 pm on May 8, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:2907
votes: 175


There are some differences:

-- The search engines reserve the right to disregard a canonical tag based on other factors.

-- Even if a canonical tag is honored, it isn't clear if the transfer of credit for backlinks is exactly the same.

-- A 301 transfers all visitors to the new page. A canonical tag doesn't transfer anyone to the new page.
8:54 pm on May 8, 2014 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator robert_charlton is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 11, 2000
posts:11522
votes: 225


Note that for rel="canonical" to be honored, the page content needs to duplicate or extremely similar.

(It's likely that this is what was intended by the example, but the question is broad enough that it's worth mentioning.)
9:23 pm on May 8, 2014 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 19, 2013
posts:388
votes: 0


I have never seen yahoo/bing honour canonical ever, only 301! I would always 301 personally!
12:31 am on May 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:2907
votes: 175


We should keep in mind that the canonical tag wasn't created to be used as a normal re-direct, at least not as its primary purpose. Its primary usage is to tell search engines which page in a group of copies should be treated as the canonical page. Some people also try to use it for partial protection against scrapers.

Since a cononical tag doesn't re-direct any traffic, it can never be used as that kind of a re-direct. But it can direct search engines to a selected page among a group of copies, so it might be thought of as a kind of search engine re-direct. The search engine companies have said that this is a legitimate use, and they have backed this up by programming their search algorithms to formally re-direct all backlinks to the canonical page for algorithmic processing, though possibly with a small loss of "link juice".
5:55 am on May 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 5, 2002
posts:880
votes: 2


The similarity between 301 and canonical start and end with the fact they both help you avoid duplicate content issues.

[edited by: McMohan at 7:09 am (utc) on May 9, 2014]

6:33 am on May 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 19, 2013
posts:1097
votes: 0


does anyone know if pointing a rel=canonical on domainx.com to domainy.com would be equivalent of a 301?

If possible, I'd use a 301 redirect if I could, but...

According to Google [please don't make me pull up references right now], yes they should be equivalent when a 301 cannot be used. As far as other search engines go, IDK -- Personally, if I couldn't implement a 301 redirect I'd use a JavaScript/meta-refresh to the new location with a time of 0 seconds and also point a rel=canonical to the new location and take my chances with other search engines picking up on the fact the old location is being redirected to the new location without the use of a 301.

-- Keep in mind if someone has access to mod_rewrite, PHP, or many other scripting languages they can issue a "proper" 301 redirect for any page/site, and the "proper" way is definitely a better way to go, IMO.
11:27 am on May 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

New User

joined:Apr 8, 2014
posts:9
votes: 0


Canonical tag is used to tell search engine in which page is the main page. 301 redirect is like a change of address intimate to any important offices. From one to another relocation activity done.
2:54 pm on May 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 23, 2003
posts:182
votes: 0


Yes, I apologise to the OP, I was talking purely from a content point of view and not as a redirect for the domain in general. I would use both where necessary unless our clients ask otherwise.

If you had duplicate websites on those domains with no redirect then use a canonical tag to the domain (and individual pages) you want to rank for your content, otherwise use a 301 redirect if you want one domain to forward to the other.

I had run into a problem only last week which I managed to fix after a few days. After a plugin upgrade in one of our Wordpress websites I had noticed that the canonical tag had disappeared and the rankings shot down 6-7 pages. After reinserting the canonical tag they went back to where they were originally after fetching Google in WMT.

It could be a coincidence as it seems that Google are testing one or two things lately, but based on my recent problems with rankings they have boiled down to the canonical tag either being formatted wrongly or missing.

That is just my findings though and somebody else may be able to better clear up how much influence a canonical tag has in SEO, but I am using it more than ever at present.