Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.80.4.76

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Rel=Canonical left blank?

     
4:28 pm on Sep 9, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 8, 2019
posts: 89
votes: 2


All canonicals are left blank on my site.

Is this ok or should I make them self-referencing to the URL?

I don't have duplicate content so don't technically need a canonical in place. Just want to make sure it's ok to have the canonical blank.

Google doesn't appear to specify the answer in their webmasters blog.

Thanks!
5:58 pm on Sept 9, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 1, 2016
posts:2693
votes: 816


What do you mean by:
All canonicals are left blank on my site.

Do you add a link tag with rel="canonicals" but show no link, or do you simply not show anything.

Basically, if there is no canonical, then there is none, don't show anything. If you are showing a blank tag, why? I doubt it will cause any real issue but it is useless and adds to the cruft.
6:13 pm on Sept 9, 2019 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator not2easy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Dec 27, 2006
posts:4470
votes: 332


I agree with NickMNS. If there is no tag, you are not required to have one. If there is a blank canonical tag it should either be used or removed but that is up to you. In general, if none of your content can be found at other URLs, it is not a requirement to declare a canonical.
6:56 pm on Sept 9, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

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

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:10334
votes: 1061


I see this as more chuckles and a possible indication to g that the webmaster has no clue ... and that might have them question everything from then on.

But one can test it out and see if it makes a difference.

Personally never used canonical ... ever. Then again I don't use "CMS" which has all kinds of fun things going on with URLS---nature of the beast.
11:18 am on Sept 10, 2019 (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:12368
votes: 403


FWIW, something I once saw a "CMS" built for IIS do that horrified me... It had a setting to automatically set the rel canonical URL to self-reference the url of the page it was on, *no matter what it was*.

This same CMS, and I won't reveal what it was, also felt that the main task of optimization was writing the URL to include all of the keywords in the page title... and it also included meta keywords (this was in the past 5 years or so, which made it amazingly out of step). It also included in the meta keywords list the name of the CMS system and its manufacturer, as if that plug for the home team on unrelated sites through the web was going to help the credibility of the company. These particular keywords were built into the system and couldn't easily be removed.

I mention all of the above, which are essentially off-topic, just to emphasize how bad its choices were... including the auto self-referencing.

I'm not, btw, opposing self-referencing canonical urls assuming they can be manually controlled and adjusted. An argument can be made for self-referencing canonicals when properly set, but I'll stay out of that one.

But one can test it out and see if it makes a difference.
That's likely to be a long term and inconsistent test, so long term and inconsistent that I'd say that such a test was meaningless.

6:54 pm on Sept 10, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 8, 2019
posts: 89
votes: 2


Hi All,

The rel=canonical for every page on the site is:

<link rel="canonical" href="" />

Sounds like it's not an issue, just redundant and can be removed?

Thanks!
5:30 am on Sept 11, 2019 (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:12368
votes: 403


I'd say it should be removed, agreeing with what not2easy posted... my emphasis added...
If there is a blank canonical tag it should either be used or removed

The href= / part (with or without the slash) just sitting there always makes me nervious, as one never knows how it's going to be interpreted by search engines with massive infrastructures and which have been known to have occasional glitches.

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members