Hi all, I've tried to use the search function to locate any threads on this, but couldn't find, so I opened a new one. Sorry if a thread already exists. Question: Do you think using the rel=canonical is worth the trouble? I really don't see the point of that function... Thanks, Bob
I've gota admit Bob, I agree with you. It seems a bit of a laborious task to go through any given site explaining that the original version of a given article is located elsewhere. Theres been a lot of talk about the tag too, but for many sites, it won't apply simply because of the size of their site or static nature
This function is one of the best things the Google have introduced. Because of this function, we can now fight against internal duplicate content. For example: On this DP page, you will see "Display Mode" option on the right top corner. If you click on it, then you can switch to different modes. All these modes will generate different urls which point to the same page. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=1247579 and http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1247579 Point to the same page. This creates duplicate issue. To tackle this issue, you simply tell Google, via canonical tag, that the link you want Google to prefer or index is http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1247579 So Google will ignore all other URLs that point to this page. I hope this answers your question.
the problem is that with big sites, getting the canonical every time is just a pain, how about sorting duplicate content by getting google to index content relating it to a specific point in time, therefore if the bots find it in the future, some sort of copyscape method can be used in accordance to a time frame in order to accurately point duplications...
i think canonical tag is definitely going to work.. the duplicate content problem would be minimized with the help of canonical tag...