I don’t know if everyone’s seen this but there’s a very important point here regarding canonicals. And it’s the fact Google only checks canonicals on the raw HTML, not the rendered one. So, make sure your server doesn’t output canonical placeholders that are replaced on renderhttps://twitter.com/pedrodias/status/994658539623845888 …
-
Could you clarify, if possible
@JohnMu?
We (currently) only process the rel=canonical on the initially fetched, non-rendered version.
-
-
Thank you. That confirms my logics
-
Better tell these folks ... https://www.google.com/search?q=rel+canonical+google+tag+manager … Some of the articles even show “proof” that GTM rendered canonical has an effect. I’ve personally have never had to try.
- Antwoorden weergeven
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
Just to confirm, you're absolutely, 100% on that? :-)
-
hundo-p.
- Antwoorden weergeven
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
Out of interest, why?
-
Security, maybe? Same reason they're ignored outside of <head>. Opems up lots of angles for abuse.
- Antwoorden weergeven
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
Does this also apply to rel=next/prev tags? Or are they treated differently?
Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
-
-
so placing a canonical via JS is not the way?
Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
-
-
Deze Tweet is niet beschikbaar.
-
It's not really an SEO question but rather a CMS one. Google will process HTML server-side canonical tag equally to a HTTP header canonical. I did a limited test which found the HTTP header link was picked up quicker - https://twitter.com/Adoubleagent/status/974015827103158274 … Just do what is easiest in your CMS.
- Antwoorden weergeven
-
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.