nukeSEO.com - PHPNuke SEO Search engine optimization, professional tools including nukeSEO, nukeSPAM, nukeFEED, nukePIE, nukeWYSIWYG and more

 

. Welcome to nukeSEO.com  ! 
.
.
.

Tag This



.
nukeSEO.com: Forums


 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Can nukeSEO(tm) DH also handle rel="canonical"?
 Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nukeSEO.com Forum Index -> nukeSEO (tm)
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
montego
webmaster


Joined: Dec 26, 2005
Posts: 254

PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:09 pm    Post subject: Can nukeSEO(tm) DH also handle rel="canonical"? Reply with quote

One of the issues with *nuke, especially within News and Forums, but in other areas as well (such as anything with a list and sort feature), is substantially duplicate content. I wonder if the nukeSEO(tm) DH classes can be modified to not only handle the page title and meta keywords/descriptions, but also to recognize when the a link rel="canonical" would be helpful.

See this here:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

This whole DH architecture opens up exciting new opportunities every time we turn around. Wink Great job kguske!
  
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
spasticdonkey
webmaster


Joined: Oct 26, 2007
Posts: 69

PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Can nukeSEO(tm) DH also handle rel="canonical" Reply with quote

nice idea.

montego wrote:
This whole DH architecture opens up exciting new opportunities every time we turn around. Wink Great job kguske!


I second that... I stayed up until 4:30am the first night I got it config'd, playing with titles, keywords, modals, and such; until my eyes started watering which forced me to go to bed. Rolling Eyes

great fun, even with the coding hangover the next day...
  
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kguske
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: May 12, 2005
Posts: 875

PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possibly. But what about short links?
_________________
  
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
montego
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Already mentioned in a different thread and ShortLinks doesn't resolve any of the "duplicate" content problem as all parameters are needed even in the shortened URL (with very few exceptions).
  
Back to top
spasticdonkey
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i read this (below) and i think i better understand the canonical setup.. I had just glanced over this originally and assumed it was implemented similar to rel="nofollow".. But looks like montego's suggesting the ability to mark a page as duplicate content and add a tag to the head with the URL you prefer to be indexed...

Quote:
Since February 12th, 2009 the 3 major search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing) have agreed to recognized a new canonical link element.This will allow people who donít have server access to hint the search engines on their favorite canonical version of the URL in order to prevent useless duplicated content.

The Canonical Link Element is a small piece of code that youíll insert in the <head> of your source code for the page that you wish to have seen under its canonical form by the search engines.

Letís take an example of non-canonical ecommerce link:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

In order to prevent conflicts and duplicate content with different attribute variation of this dynamic link, weíll be using the Canonical Link Element in the source code to properly guide the search engines:

Image

Please note that the canonical link element is not a strict directive, but merely a recommendation; the final decision to take this into account or not is strictly upon the search engines to make.

Also note that it is not possible to address a cross-domain reference through this canonical link element, however, sub-domain references are acceptable.

Whenever using canonical link element on your pages, it is strongly recommended that any reference to this page is make with an absolute link instead of a relative one.
  
Back to top
kguske
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry - I need to clarify. My point is that if we show a link in the canonical link, we'll need to replicate the shortlinks logic to determine that link, right?
  
Back to top
montego
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, kguske, I believe you are right to an extent. I would suspect that one could only really determine the "canonical" though with a manual override? So, not sure there needs to be any specific logic... (Haven't given this more than an ounce of thought though... just now going through upgrading my site and really digging deep into this.)
  
Back to top
kguske
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If mod_rewrite handles the canonical link, too, there shouldn't be an issue.

BTW, this is a really good overview from Matt Cutts:
  
Back to top
montego
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't believe mod_rewrite can handle it. What you are suggesting is that we lop off the additional parameters when the URL has to have the additional "parameters" in order for proper operation for the end-user. However, from an SEO perspective, it only makes sense to crawl the main canonical link.

For example, the following URLs are examples of substantially similar (in fact, essentially duplicate) content:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Now, with RavenNuke(tm)'s latest News rendition, I re-coded the comment threading to pull from the user's cookie or userinfo record rather than taking it off the URL, but I needed an example to bring my point home.

So, if I ShortLink the above, these two links become:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

For the non-RavenNuke(tm) 2.4+ users, the above two links are absolutely necessary to be unique in order for the user's comment threading settings to work properly. I can't just chop the second URL down to just match the first.

This is why I think we need to either modify the core code to pass rel="canonical" on these links (probably the best option, but won't help for add-ons), or we need some way to be able to override a link to add the attribute. However, I will admit, now that I understand better how DH works, I don't think it is a good fit for fixing this because the overrides are by ID's rather than unique URLs. So, I understand your hesitation/concern.

Edit: in thinking about this some more, if I can create the right link pattern, maybe, just maybe I can get it to add the "rel" attribute... what a pain.
  
Back to top
kguske
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, what I meant was - which link do we use in the canonical link?
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

or
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Since these are generated by PHP, we will need to duplicate the short links logic IF mod_rewrite doesn't also rewrite the canonical link. If mod_rewrite handles it, we can just use the first link.
  
Back to top
montego
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think that is really the right question. Either a site is going to use ShortLinks or it isn't. So, I am not even considering the "switch" from non-ShortLinks to ShortLinks. That is not the issue here in my mind. The issue is absolutely the exact example I mentioned above.

For the following two links:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

In my opinion, the canonical should be:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

If someone is using ShortLinks, then the two links become:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

And in this case, the canonical should be:
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

So, the real question is how can we recognize when we have this issue and somehow provide the canonical reference. At this point, I am still not sure, but good discussion nonetheless.
  
Back to top
kguske
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was interesting to note from Matt Cutt's discussion the different ways to address duplicate content and also the influencing factors. For example, the weight that Google might give to the link in the sitemap...

That specific comment reinforces the need for the canonical link to be consistent with the sitemap link. We could /should use the same logic the sitemap uses to determine the link to determine the canonical link...?
  
Back to top
montego
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, very, very, very good point. I don't have specifics right now, but I seem to recall for one module, the sitemap links might be different than the main link which may also be different from the nukeFEED link. I believe News is a perfect example at least of the Sitemap link not being right... it really shouldn't include the comment threading parameters IMO.

I fixed this long back on my site when I originally setup the Sitemap and was certain that I even mentioned it at that time... but, who knows the way my memory is these days.
  
Back to top
kguske
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, posted before seeing your last response. I agree with your recommended canonicals. I was just taking it the next step, and I believe (not sure) that mod_rewrite may address it. If so, we can focus on identifying the canonicals and making sure they foot with the sitemap.
  
Back to top
montego
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, since my Sitemap is tapped, I was able to simply lop off the remaining parameters, but probably should clean this up for a nukeSEO 2.0.
  
Back to top
Display posts from previous:       
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nukeSEO.com Forum Index -> nukeSEO (tm) All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 Goto page 1, 2  Next
 Page 1 of 2

 

Jump to:   
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001-2008 phpBB Group


Page Generation: 0.05 Seconds