Comments for SEOKori.Com http://www.seokori.com Get Online, Get More Business Fri, 17 May 2013 12:02:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=363 Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by Dazzle Technolab http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1325 Dazzle Technolab Fri, 17 May 2013 12:02:08 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1325 Its very useful post to solve canonical issue.

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by Pradeep kumar http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1191 Pradeep kumar Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:58:31 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1191 Can you explain [NC] sir.why this is be use after my site name.????Explain in detail

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by pallavi singh http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1155 pallavi singh Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:01:37 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1155 hi cd
i saw your comment you solved the problem of canonical issues if it is let me know . In above code domainname.com is occur in three lines so i will have to put techiwebi.com as it is for resolve the canonical issues.
thanks & regards
pallavi singh

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by document scanning systems http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1137 document scanning systems Sat, 16 Mar 2013 05:35:37 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1137 Really a great and helpful post.

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by shanmugam http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1093 shanmugam Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:37:30 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1093 Thanks for this post. It helps me lot.

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by CD http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1081 CD Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:38:11 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1081 To adress the www & non www issue 301 is the best solution. But to canonicalize other urls having similar content rel canonical tags can be used. Click here to know more.

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by CD http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1080 CD Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:34:30 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1080 Thanks. rel canonical tags can also be put to avoid address the canonical issues. But as far www vs non-www issue is concerned, for static sites, 301 is the best solution. Other urls having similar content can be addressed by rel=canonical tags. Click here to know more

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by Leekesh Baliyan http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1058 Leekesh Baliyan Tue, 19 Feb 2013 05:38:12 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1058 CD, tell me another way too to sort out the canonical issue, i.e. meta tag inclusion. And Which one is more suitable in every aspect???

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by Mannee http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1048 Mannee Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:39:25 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1048 Hi Admin,

Nice Post !!

Your article is very helpful for me and i very clear about canonical issue. but i saw their is any code like < link rel=canonical resolve the canonical issue. so we put the code on homepage.

or can you some advice me what is the difference and their work on 301 redirect code and < rel=canonical…

]]> Comment on How to Solve Canonical Issues for Websites for SEO by Ansy http://www.seokori.com/how-to-solve-canonical-issues-for-websites-for-seo/#comment-1016 Ansy Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:50:44 +0000 http://www.seokori.com/?p=69#comment-1016 Really a great and helpful post. This post clear my doubt of canonical issue.

Thanks for sharing this.

]]>