SmartCrawl a canonical warning

My SmartCrawl is reporting some canonical content https://cdn.livechat-static.com/api/file/v2/lc/att-old/8801096/08e0004dfcf4a6a29988d842181d9e40/smartcrawl.png but I checked all pages and they are fine.

Can you help me?

  • Ash
    • WordPress Hacker

    Hello Wayne

    Thanks for enabling support access. Yes, I can see the warning.

    Do you have any server level cache on your server? For example, varnish or object cache? If so, before we proceed to the developer, would you please reset those cache and try a new SEO checkup?

    Let us know how it goes.

    Cheers

    Ash

  • Nithin
    • Support Wizard

    Hi Wayne,

    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’m afraid, the login to the support access seems to be expired. I’m getting the following error message when I try to access your dashboard via support access:

    Could you please revoke, and re-enable support access, so that we could check all the settings regarding this in the plugin side, and see what could be done to help get you sorted asap.

    Please let us know once you enable access so that we could get this sorted.

    Kind Regards,

    Nithin

  • Adam Czajczyk
    • Support Gorilla

    Hello Wayne

    I’m afraid that the support access still doesn’t work. If you’re using any security plugins other than our own Defender or there’s some additional CDN with a firewall enabled that might be the cause.

    However, I don’t think it’ll be necessary to use it for now :slight_smile:

    The message about Canonical that you’re getting doesn’t actually mean that there is any duplicated content on the site. This is not checked. It does say that there’s no canonical link used on site. I checked and there’s none indeed.

    This recommendation basically states that “IF you do have any duplicate content THEN you should use canonical link” and “no canonical link was detected”. If you do not have duplicated content on site indeed and you know it (I think you have reviewed the entire site again with support agent during the chat to confirm that) you can safely ignore that and it will not affect your SEO rankings in any way.

    Best regards,

    Adam

    • Wayne
      • Site Builder, Child of Zeus

      Hi I think the access cannot be granted because of my site was being restore back to previous setting my dev team. Anyway, I’ve re-enable the support access.

      For the canonical issue, i personally think that this should be fix on the plugin side. If we ignore the warning, then this really the purpose of the canonical feature in SmartCrawl.

      I can leave this warning for the time being as i’m 100% sure and double checked that my site does not have any duplicate contents. This manual check only can be done if there are only few pages. If the website pages increase in the future, then it will be hard to check one by one. Therefore, its always good if it will also show what are the duplicated contents and which pages have the duplication.

  • Adam Czajczyk
    • Support Gorilla

    Hi Wayne

    Yes, I understand that checking all the site, especially if it grows bigger, manually for the duplicated content can be a bit of pain. Checking it automatically though is not that “easy” either – mostly resource intensive and probably not that reliable as well (though one way or another probably doable to some level or certainty).

    However, I think I should mention one more thing that I didn’t mention before. While not having canonical link set when there’s no duplicate content on site is fine, it’s also fine to… have it there.

    On a site that has no duplicate content, having canonical links across the site or not just doesn’t make the difference. Neither will harm your SEO. So it might be safely ignored but sometimes it might just be “safer” to get it added “just in case” – thinking about the future site growth and new content being added.

    The only scenario when not having canonical link can be harmful, is when you actually do have duplicated content but don’t have canonical set.

    I agree though that some improvements to the canonical check should be made and I can already tell you that we got that on a “to do” list so should be better in future (though I’m not able to give and ETA or details at this moment, yet).

    Best regards,

    Adam

Thank NAME, for their help.

Let NAME know exactly why they deserved these points.

Gift a custom amount of points.