609870 - please use <link rel=canonical> to tel google which is the correct spelling for a document

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(developer.mozilla.org Graveyard :: General, defect)

Description

[timeless]

bout 167 results (0.21 seconds) 
Search Results

How to get a stacktrace with WinDbg - MDC 4 Oct 2010 ... Sometimes you need to get a stacktrace (call stack) for a Firefox crash or hang but Talkback or Breakpad fail because it's a special crasher ...
https://developer.mozilla.org/.../how_to_get_a_stacktrace_with_windbg - Cached

How to get a stacktrace with WinDbg - MDC How to get a stacktrace with WinDbg ... Retrieved from "https://developer ...
https://developer.mozilla.org/.../How_to_get_a_stacktrace_with_WinDbg - Cached - Similar

This will also help link shorteners to do something (according to someone from Google).

Comment 1

[timeless]

Note that one of the links appears to be for Talk:, the urls for Talk: and non Talk: should have the same spelling. Ideally we'd also fix the page titles such that Google clearly indicates one of them is a talk page.

Comment 2

[timeless]

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

Comment 3

[John Karahalis [:openjck]]

Luke: Any idea why we have two versions of that page? It doesn't seem that one is redirecting to the other.

Using rel="canonical" in circumstances might make sense from an SEO point of view, but only if this is likely to happen again on Kuma.

Comment 4

[Luke Crouch [:groovecoder]]

The 2nd link is a Talk: page - we could either use rel="canonical" on Talk: pages or at least put 'Talk:' in the title for search result listings.

Comment 5

[John Karahalis [:openjck]]

Ah. I thought the issue here was different. I noticed that the following pages both exist.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/How_to_get_a_stacktrace_with_WinDbg
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/how_to_get_a_stacktrace_with_WinDbg

I thought this might be a problem, but I see that we rel-canonical from the second to the first. This covers the issue mentioned in comment 0.

With regard to comment 4, it looks like it would not be a good idea to rel-canonical from Talk pages to actual articles. Quoting Google documentation...

> *Must the content on a set of pages be similar to the content on the canonical version?*
>
> Yes. The rel="canonical" attribute should be used only to specify the
> preferred version of many pages with identical content (although minor
> differences, such as sort order, are okay).
- http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

Marking as fixed and resolving the needinfo, but please correct me if I'm wrong.