## seo – Google selects an unrelated page as Canonical for many other pages, preventing our pages from being indexed

We have pages like:

https://www.signalogic.com/index.pl?page=surveillance_video_suspect_detection

http://www.signalogic.com/index.pl?page=sw

All our pages have a https rel = canonical tag, which the Search Console correctly displays as canonical declared by the user.

Why does Google's indexing persist in this? The two pages are not related, not even close to the same content. What we declare canonical is not "credible" or credible in any way? Somehow Google is forced to the unrelated page. What method do I need to overcome this?

## automatons – Connection of the relationship between the valid element and the viable prefix with the canonical collection

I was trying to understand the connection between the different concepts of analyzers and how they are followed in the steps of real analysis. I came across the following statement while reading LR analyzers:

An article will be valid for many viable prefixes.

Is this why the same production appears as an element in many different states / closures (which are reached by reading different input string prefixes) from canonical collections?

I think that's the case, but no text clearly establishes such connections, so I need confirmation.

## How to prove that canonical projection is a quotient map?

Let X be a topological space.
Let ~ be an equivalence relation in X
Let p: X-> X / ~ be a canonical projection

I do not know how to prove that canonical projection is a quotient map.

## seo – Can multiple canonical pages be matched to a single page of generic Amp?

I have several city pages for a single event with canonical URLs for each city.

City 1`/ city2 / event / zyx`

City 2`/ city2 / event / zyx`

Can I point the page to the same amphtml?

Amplifier for City 1 / City 2`amp / event / zyx`

What is the impact of seo if it is the same. Will Goole penalize the pages?

What is an alternative solution? Should I create individual amphtml URLs for the canonical page?

I have read this document ..
Can a single page of amplifier be matched with two canonical URLs?

The last 30 days I experienced the real ranking and the increase of CTR in Google Search, only with the configuration of pages as canonical.

The new Google Search Console when indexing pages, also obtains information if the page is (can be defined by the user) canonical or not. If not, Google automatically configures a canonical page (which can sometimes cause Google to assign a fake page as canonical).

Now I have this challenge, my root page is very high and all other versions (/, index.php, index.html) are redirected to the root BUT when I allow the root page to be indexed by the search console, they do not show information on canical Page because it is not configured.

Now, organizing the pages as canonical probably helps Google classify the pages, but I'm confused about the canonicalized home page. I must do it or not (or I'm simply overcoming all this to lose a clear meaning about the canonical pages)

Thanks for any information!

## seo – Canonical management when there are several document revisions available?

My guess is that Google will punish these pages because they look like duplicate content …

Often, Google gives less weight to pages with duplicate content in SERPs, or even chooses not to index them. However, the word "punish" is quite misleading because it suggests some kind of obscure brand or SEO penalty on your site, which could not be further from the truth (see The Myth of Grief for Duplicate Content).

But what happens when parts of the manual contain (almost) the same content during different versions as, for example,? Did the project not change in those places?

I would be surprised if Google did not have a special rule to find what appear to be version numbers in the structure of the URL, then keep it in mind when indexing. You could consider just trying it and see what happens. You will not get into any problem, like again, Google duplicate content Detection is just an indexing rule and does not generate any type of penalty. It is possible that Google's algorithm is more intelligent than it is attributed.

How can I tell search engines that this duplicate content is fine in this case?

The question is not whether the duplicate content is "right" or not, it is always "fine" to have duplicate content on your site if it has a purpose. Google may choose not to index its previous manual versions, which is fine. They can choose to index the previous and current versions, which would be ideal. If you only index your old manual versions and not your latest version, then that's when you would look to supply `canonical` labels

In short, the best way to solve this is to simply try it. You've got nothing to lose.

## Functional analysis. What is the difference between the methods to define a matrix function (canonical form of Jordan, Hermite interpolation and Cauchy integral)?

None: all are equivalent and all three return the same result for any function that is defined in the spectrum of $$A$$. (Theorem 1.12 in Higham's book Matrix functions.) The only minor drawback of the Cauchy integral is that it needs the function to be analytic in a suitable region, including the eigenvalues ​​to make sense.

I'm not sure why you care about the definitions "in application"; they are only definitions, and this is not usually how they are calculated. If you are interested in its effectiveness as a method to actually calculate the matrix function, then that is another question. 🙂

## Personalized Google search: I want search results to come from subdomain sites that share canonical content

I have Google Custom Search on my site, let's call it www.sitename.com and I also have different sub-domain sites that are supposed to represent state regions. So I have nevada.sitename.com or idaho.sitename.com. These subdomains also have Google Custom Search working on them. The regional subdomain sites share the same content as the canonical site (www). I want to be able to get search results on subdomain sites with subdomain URLs, but when I search for them I'm not getting results because Google only has the results of canonical sites available. I know that Google does not want to crawl duplicate pages, but is there any way to get results with subdomain URLs even though they share the same content as the canonical site?

## The traffic was reduced to nothing after the Google change to the canonical URL … what can I do?

Hello SEO experts,

Please, forgive me for how naive my question is for professionals.

I've been blogging for 15 years. Traffic was always constant or increasing, but it was reduced to almost nothing in August 2018. This is aligned with the following:

"
There has been an event on Google Search that could affect the data on your site. "

And when I look for the event, I get to:

All metrics are now assigned to the canonical URL selected by Google from the linked page in the search results. This means that if a user clicks on a search result with a non-canonical URL (for example, an AMP or a non-canonical mobile or desktop version), the canonical URL is credited with printing and clicked on place of in the no. Canonical URL that actually appeared in the search results. This change should make it easier to see the search data for a single piece of content on a single property. You can get more information about this change in our blog post.

I'm struggling to understand what it means and how it affects me … and what I can do to "please Google."

Any advice? Explanation for dummies like me?

## partial derivative – Ge the canonical form of the equation

Dice $$x ^ 2u_ {xx} + 2xyu_ {xy} – 3y ^ 2u_ {yy} – 2xu_x + 4yu_y + 16x ^ 4u = 0$$
I have to find the canonical form. The determinant is the following $$D = 16x ^ 2y ^ 2$$
I considered cases when $$x$$ Y $$and$$ can be $$0$$. When calculating for the remaining case (where both $$x$$ Y $$and$$ It is not $$0$$ and the type is hyperbolic), I'm not getting its canonical form. I'm receiving this
$$(- 3y ^ 2 – 6x ^ 3y + 9x ^ 6) u _ { xi xi} + (-3y ^ 2 + frac {2y} {x} + frac {1} {x ^ 2} ) u _ {eta} + (-6y ^ 2 – 6x ^ 2 + frac {2y (1-3x ^ 4)} x) u _ { eta xi} + ( frac {-4} {x} + 4y) u_ eta + 4yu_ xi + 16x ^ 4u = 0$$
But the point is that this does not meet the requirements for the canonical form of hyperbolic type.
Any help would be appreciated.