What is the purpose of hreflang and canonical tags in SEO?

When managing international or multilingual websites, one of the biggest SEO challenges is ensuring the right version of a page appears in the right country’s search results. This is where hreflang and canonical tags come in. Though often misunderstood or misused, they serve distinct but critical purposes in SEO.

What is the hreflang tag?

The hreflang tag is an HTML attribute that signals to search engines which language and regional version of a webpage should be shown to users.

Purpose:

Ensure users see content in their language
Prevent duplicate content issues across localized pages
Improve regional targeting and engagement

Basic Format:

Example Use Case:

A UK-based e-commerce site might have:

https://example.com/ (generic English)
https://example.com/uk/ (English for UK)
https://example.com/au/ (English for Australia)

Each of these should reference the others using reciprocal hreflang tags.

What is the canonical tag?

The canonical tag tells search engines which version of a page should be treated as the primary source when multiple pages have similar or identical content.

Purpose:

Consolidate link equity
Avoid duplicate content penalties
Help search engines index the preferred URL

Basic Format:

Example Use Case:

You might have:

Both versions should canonicalize to the clean URL: https:/example.com/page

Key Differences

Feature	hreflang	canonical
Function	Language/region targeting	Duplicate content control
Affects Ranking?	Yes, geo-targeting relevance	Yes, consolidation of signals
Page Relationship	Between localized versions	Between duplicates or near-duplicates
Implementation	Requires full bidirectional linking	One-way reference is sufficient

Google’s Official Definition

From Google Search Central :
"Use hreflang to tell Google which language and regional version of a page to show in search results. Use canonical to avoid indexing duplicate content across URLs."

When used correctly, both tags help Google index the right content for the right users — without causing duplication or cannibalization.

Explore further

Can you do SEO Yourself? SEO Tools Comparison How A.I. Is Impacting The SEO Industry SEO “Imaging”: A Guide To Using Images Effectively

Can hreflang and canonical tags be used on the same page?

Yes, hreflang and canonical tags can be used on the same page — but only if implemented correctly. These tags serve different purposes and, when aligned properly, work together without conflict. However, misconfiguration can send mixed signals to search engines and lead to indexing issues.

Google’s Official Stance

According to Google Search Central:

"You can use hreflang and rel=canonical together. Make sure that each language version points to itself as canonical, not to a different language version."
Source: Google Search Documentation – Localized Versions

Why This Matters

hreflang helps Google serve the correct language/region version to users
canonical helps Google consolidate link equity for duplicate or very similar URLs

Using them together is necessary for multilingual SEO when pages have:

Similar structure but different content (language versions)
Query parameter variations or session IDs

Best Practice Structure

Each localized version should:

Include a canonical tag pointing to itself
Include hreflang tags pointing to itself and all other language/region variants

Example:

On https://example.com/uk/page.html :

On https://example.com/us/page.html :

John Mueller on Canonical + Hreflang

In a tweet , Google’s John Mueller confirmed:
"The hreflang annotations should be pointing to canonical URLs. And the canonical should be self-referencing. You can combine them — just don’t mix up what they’re pointing at."

What are the most common SEO mistakes with hreflang and canonical implementation?

Misapplying hreflang or canonical tags can do more harm than good. These tags are powerful tools—but only when used precisely. Below are the most frequent technical and strategic mistakes, grouped by failure type.

Misconfigured Canonical Tags

❌ Canonical Points to Another Language Version

This is one of the most damaging errors. If you canonicalize your French page to the English version, Google may ignore the French content entirely.

Fix: Always use self-referencing canonicals on localized pages.

❌ Missing Canonical Tag on Variant URLs

Pages with tracking parameters, session IDs, or filters should always point to a clean URL version.

Fix: Ensure all variants consolidate to one canonical version.

Broken Hreflang Return Tags

❌ One-Way Hreflang References

If /en-gb/ links to /en-us/ but /en-us/ doesn’t link back, Google may ignore both.

Fix: Hreflang must be bidirectional.

❌ Incorrect Language or Region Codes

Using invalid or undefined values like "en-uk" (correct is "en-gb") can invalidate the whole hreflang group.

Fix: Follow ISO 639-1 (language) and ISO 3166-1 Alpha 2 (region) codes strictly.

Cross-Tag Conflicts

❌ Canonical Points Elsewhere While Hreflang Suggests Alternates

This sends mixed signals: canonical says “ignore this page,” while hreflang says “this is a valid language version.”

Fix: Canonical should always point to itself on localized variants if hreflang is present.

Deployment Errors

❌ Hreflang Missing on Mobile Versions

Separate mobile URLs (m.example.com) often miss hreflang altogether.

Fix: Add hreflang tags to both desktop and mobile versions.

❌ Using Relative URLs

Hreflang and canonical should always use absolute URLs to avoid parsing errors.

How does Google treat canonical tags when hreflang is also present?

When both canonical and hreflang tags are present on a page, Google attempts to evaluate them independently — but contradictory signals can lead to indexing issues or the wrong page being shown in search results.

Understanding how Google prioritizes one tag over another depends on how well they’re implemented together.

Google's Priority Logic

From official Google Search Central documentation :
"If hreflang and rel=canonical are used together incorrectly, canonical may override hreflang and lead to Google indexing the wrong version."

Key Principle:

The canonical tag wins if it contradicts hreflang.
Google only considers hreflang if the canonicalized page includes reciprocal hreflang references.

Indexing Flow

Crawl page
Read canonical tag → resolve preferred version
Evaluate hreflang tags → apply only if canonical URL is valid

If canonical points to a different language version, hreflang will be ignored.

Correct Behavior

Each page variant (e.g., en-us, en-gb, fr-fr):

Should canonicalize to itself
Should include hreflang pointing to itself and others
Should be listed in the same sitemap or header if possible

Example: Correct Setup

On example.com/fr/:

On example.com/us/:

Example: Incorrect Setup

On example.com/fr/:

In this case, Google may only index /us/, ignoring the /fr/ version entirely.

Real-World Confirmation

John Mueller (Google) stated in a Search Off the Record episode :
"If your canonical is pointing somewhere else, Google will follow that and ignore your hreflang annotations."

Summary

Canonical tags override hreflang when misaligned
Always canonicalize to the same language URL the hreflang represents
Consistency across canonicals and hreflangs is critical for multilingual SEO integrity

What’s the best practice when combining canonical and hreflang on localized pages?

To ensure Google indexes and displays the correct language version of a page, the hreflang and canonical tags must be aligned with precision. Best practices vary slightly depending on whether localized content is served via different URLs or same URLs with regional intent.

Different URLs for Different Languages/Regions

When each localized version has its own unique URL:

Best Practices:

Canonical should always point to self
Hreflang should reference self + all variants (bidirectionally)
Use absolute URLs only
Include hreflang tags in <head> or via XML sitemap

Example (on /fr/ page):

Do the same reciprocally on each other version.

Same URL, Different Regions (Geo-Targeting via GSC)

If you’re using the same content URL but targeting different countries (e.g., same English version for US and UK):

Best Practices:

Use single canonical tag to self
Implement multiple hreflang entries for the same URL
Define targeting in Google Search Console via International Targeting

Example:

This is acceptable when content is identical, and GSC targeting distinguishes regions.

Additional Best Practices

Don’t canonicalize different languages to a single “master” version
Use hreflang sitemaps for large multilingual sites
Ensure return links exist in all hreflang setups
Validate setup using Google’s Hreflang Testing Tool

Combining canonical and hreflang correctly prevents misindexing, improves user experience, and aligns with Google’s multilingual SEO expectations.

People also search

Organic Search Traffic (Traffic from Search Engines) Google Search Generative Experience (SGE): A New Era in Search Technology

Should self-referencing canonicals be used with hreflang tags?

Yes — when using hreflang, each localized page should include a self-referencing canonical tag. This is a widely recommended best practice by Google, as it ensures that each regional or language version is treated as an independent, valid URL for indexing.

Purpose of Self-Referencing Canonicals

Confirms to Google that the page is the preferred version of itself
Prevents conflict between canonical and hreflang signals
Preserves regional authority and link equity

Using self-referencing canonicals aligns canonical logic with hreflang logic — where each version is independently valid and indexed.

Google’s Official Guidance

From Google Search Central:

"Use rel=canonical to specify the preferred version of a set of duplicate pages. For hreflang, each language version should have a canonical link pointing to itself."

Example: Correct Setup with Self-Canonical + Hreflang

On https://example.com/uk/page.html:

On https://example.com/us/page.html:

What You Should Avoid

Canonicalizing all versions to a single “master” page (e.g., US version)
Mixing cross-language canonical and hreflang signals

Example of a Broken Setup:

Google will ignore the /fr/ version and index only /us/.

Summary

Always use self-referencing canonical with hreflang
Never canonicalize across language variants
Reference: Google’s localized content documentation

Can canonical and hreflang tags cause indexing issues?

Yes. When implemented incorrectly, canonical and hreflang tags can conflict with each other, resulting in unintended indexing behavior. These two tags serve different purposes — canonical for deduplication, hreflang for localization — but when their signals contradict, search engines may ignore one or both.

Why Conflicts Occur

Search engines rely on the canonical tag to decide which URL should be indexed. If that canonical points to a different language or region version than the one referenced by hreflang, Google will favor the canonical and may exclude the localized version.

Conflict Scenarios and Their Impact

Scenario 1: Canonical Points to a Master Page Across Languages

Issue: All localized pages canonicalize to the US/EN version
Effect: Only one version is indexed, others are ignored

Incorrect Example:

Scenario 2: hreflang Present but No Self-Canonical

Issue: Canonical is missing or points to an unrelated page
Effect: Google may not consider the page as valid for hreflang mapping

Resolution: Always include a self-referencing canonical when hreflang is present.

Scenario 3: Mixed Signals in Templates

Issue: Template inserts the same canonical for all regional pages
Effect: Hreflang tags become invalid; canonical overrides take effect

Fix: Ensure canonical logic dynamically respects the page’s localized URL.

Google’s Position

From Google Search documentation:

“If hreflang and rel=canonical conflict, canonical will override the hreflang signal.”

Also confirmed by John Mueller:

“We need the canonical and hreflang to align. If they don’t, we may just ignore the hreflang.”

How to Prevent Indexing Issues

Use self-referencing canonical on each localized page
Avoid canonicalizing to another language or region
Ensure hreflang references are reciprocal
Validate implementation via GSC’s International Targeting report

When both tags are aligned, Google uses canonical to deduplicate and hreflang to geotarget — without conflict.

What tools can help audit hreflang and canonical tag usage?

Auditing hreflang and canonical tags requires specialized tools that can crawl large sites, detect tag placements, flag inconsistencies, and map relationships between localized pages. Below is a comparison of top tools used for this purpose.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

Strengths:

Full site crawl with hreflang + canonical detection
Exportable hreflang reports with return tag validation
Can compare canonical vs. actual indexed URLs

Limitations:

Interface may overwhelm beginners
Requires manual configuration for large-scale hreflang checks

Use Case: Best for technical SEO teams managing multilingual architectures.

Price: Free for up to 500 URLs; paid version starts at £149/year

Sitebulb

Strengths:

Visual crawl maps + hreflang flow diagrams
Detects incorrect canonicalization patterns
Highlights hreflang return link errors and ISO code mismatches

Limitations:

Windows/macOS desktop only
Not ideal for very large enterprise sites

Use Case: Excellent for site audits with visual output and team collaboration.

Price: From $15/month (Lite) to $39/month (Pro)

Ahrefs

Strengths:

Can show canonicalized vs. indexed pages
See which pages Google actually indexes vs. canonical preferences
Backlink and content relevance data included

Limitations:

Does not crawl hreflang tags in full detail
Less granular for technical validation compared to crawlers

Use Case: Ideal for identifying indexation mismatches across language pages.

Price: From $99/month

Google Search Console

Strengths:

Canonical URL as selected by Google
Hreflang diagnostics under “International Targeting”
URL Inspection Tool for single-page check

Limitations:

No bulk URL audit functionality
International Targeting tool not available in GA4-linked properties

Use Case: Best for verifying live Google-selected signals on specific URLs.

Price: Free

Comparison Table

Tool	Hreflang Support	Canonical Audit	Scale	Best For	Price
Screaming Frog	✅ Full	✅ Full	Medium	Tech SEO teams	Free / £149/y
Sitebulb	✅ Advanced	✅ Visual	Medium	Consultants, agencies	From $15/mo
Ahrefs	❌ Partial	✅ Index signals	Large data	Content & index analysis	From $99/mo
Google Console	✅ Basic	✅ Selected URL	Small-scale	Live URL validation	Free

Choose your tools based on technical depth, site size, and whether you need live index signals or full crawling control.

How should canonicals be handled in alternate language URLs?

When managing alternate language pages, canonical tags must be implemented carefully to preserve localized relevance and avoid indexing conflicts. The goal is to help search engines understand that each version is valid and distinct, not a duplicate.

Key Principle

Each localized URL must include a self-referencing canonical tag. This tells search engines that the specific version is authoritative for its language and region.

Google’s Recommendation

From Google Search Documentation :
"If you have multiple language versions of a page, each should have a canonical pointing to itself, not to another version."

When to Use Canonicals in Language URLs

Always use self-referencing canonical when content is language-specific
Do not canonicalize to a single “master” page
Canonical must be present in all localized versions
Canonicals should always use absolute URLs

Example: Correct Usage in French Page

Common Mistakes

Canonicalizing multiple languages to the same English page
Missing canonical tags on translated content
Mixing regional content (e.g., en-uk vs. en-us) with a shared canonical

Pattern for Canonical + hreflang Pairing

Recap

Self-referencing canonical + hreflang = valid localized indexing
Cross-language canonicalization = indexing problems
Use absolute paths in both canonical and hreflang

Following this structure allows each regional version to build authority and be indexed independently — while still being understood as part of a unified international content set.

What are the risks of using canonical to point across languages?

Using canonical tags to point across language versions is a critical error that can nullify your entire hreflang setup. Although it might seem logical to consolidate similar content, in multilingual SEO, doing so breaks the regional indexing logic that hreflang is designed to preserve.

What Happens When You Canonicalize Across Languages?

Google will treat the canonical target as the only index-worthy version, ignoring all others — even if hreflang tags exist.

Example of a Bad Setup

Result: Google indexes /en/, disregards /fr/, and ignores hreflang signals.

Google’s Statement

From Google Search Central:
"If the canonical points to a different language version, we will ignore the hreflang annotations on the non-canonical pages."

Common Reasons This Mistake Happens

Attempting to consolidate duplicate content across languages
Misunderstanding canonical’s purpose (deduplication, not hierarchy)
Poor CMS logic applying a default canonical across templates

What Experts Warn

Aleyda Solis:
"Canonical should always reflect the version you want indexed for that market. Cross-language canonicals invalidate the international SEO signal."

Marie Haynes
"Google is not going to guess your intent. If canonical and hreflang disagree, canonical wins."

Real-World Consequences

Loss of visibility in regional SERPs
Fragmented traffic patterns
Wasted localization investment (Google only shows the wrong version)

Correct Pattern

Each language version must canonicalize to itself:

How do major multilingual sites manage hreflang and canonical tags?

Large international websites like Amazon, IKEA, and Booking.com operate across dozens of languages and regions. Their hreflang and canonical implementations are designed to maintain localized visibility while avoiding content duplication and signal conflicts.

Amazon

Structure:

Country-specific subdomains (e.g., amazon.de, amazon.co.uk, amazon.fr)
Each localized page uses a self-referencing canonical
Hreflang implemented across variations

Example: On https://www.amazon.fr/product-page :

Observation: Amazon uses hard-coded hreflang for primary pages and may offload regional variation through sitemap-level declarations.

IKEA

Structure:

Country paths under a global domain (e.g., ikea.com/se/, ikea.com/de/)
Canonical always points to the localized version
Uses language + region codes precisely (sv-se, de-de)

Example from **** https://www.ikea.com/se/sv/p/product-name :

Technical Detail: IKEA’s hreflang is consistent across internal pages, and it does not canonicalize across languages.

Booking.com

Structure:

Same URL pattern, language switches via subdirectories (e.g., /en-us/, /fr/)
Uses hreflang in page headers and via XML sitemaps
Canonical is always to the exact localized page

Sample pattern:

Observation: Booking includes language switching in the interface and reinforces signals in hreflang and canonical to match.

Key Takeaway

Even enterprise-scale sites do not simplify hreflang/canonical setups. They follow the same principles:

Self-canonicalization
Full hreflang loops
Absolute URLs

Correct implementation at scale ensures proper indexing, user targeting, and brand consistency globally.

Can you use hreflang without canonical, and vice versa?

Yes, but each tag plays a specific role, and the absence of one affects how the other functions. In many cases, using only one tag may still yield acceptable results — but using both properly is strongly preferred.

Independent Use: hreflang Without Canonical

When it's acceptable:

On simple multilingual websites with few localized URLs
When there are no duplicate content issues between versions

Potential risks:

Google may choose its own canonical based on internal logic
Risk of inconsistent indexing if localized content is very similar

Outcome: hreflang may still work, but Google might index the wrong version if canonical is omitted.

Independent Use: Canonical Without Hreflang

When it's acceptable:

On monolingual websites
When targeting one region/language only
For deduplicating variants (e.g., UTM links, filter parameters)

Potential risks:

Users in other countries may see the wrong content version
Missed opportunity to explicitly target different regions/languages

Outcome: Canonical will help control duplication, but won’t handle international targeting.

Recommended Pairing (Best Practice)

Scenario	Use Canonical	Use Hreflang	Notes
One site, no language variants	✅	❌	Canonical only is fine
Multilingual with unique content	✅	✅	Best setup: full control
Multilingual, identical content	✅ (self)	✅	Canonical to self + full hreflang mapping
Language variants but no region intent	✅	✅ (optional)	OK, but hreflang improves precision

Google’s Documentation Says:

"You can use rel=canonical without hreflang, but when implementing hreflang on multilingual content, canonical helps Google select the right version more accurately."

What’s the correct hreflang and canonical setup for translated blog content?

When translating blog posts into multiple languages, it’s critical to configure hreflang and canonical tags correctly to avoid duplication and help search engines serve the right version to the right user.

Step 1: Use Unique URLs Per Language

Each language version must be hosted on a separate, crawlable URL.

Examples:

English: https://example.com/blog/seo-audit
German: https://example.com/de/blog/seo-audit
Spanish: https://example.com/es/blog/seo-audit

Avoid using dynamic scripts or cookies to control language — Googlebot needs a stable URL.

Step 2: Self-Referencing Canonical on Each Version

Each translated blog post must include a canonical tag pointing to itself.

Example on Spanish version:

Do not canonicalize all translations to the original (English) version.

Step 3: Hreflang Tags for All Language Variants

Add hreflang annotations to every version, referencing all other languages plus itself.

Example on French version:

All other translations must include matching reciprocal links.

Step 4: Optional – Hreflang Sitemap

If you have hundreds of translated blog posts, implement hreflang via XML sitemaps instead of hardcoding in every <head>.

Reference: Google Developer Docs – Hreflang in Sitemaps

Step 5: Test with Tools

Use:

Google Search Console (International Targeting section)
TechnicalSEO Hreflang Tester
Screaming Frog with hreflang validation enabled

Workflow Summary

Task	Implementation
Canonical per version	Self-referencing per language URL
Hreflang per version	All variants + self, bidirectional
Sitemaps (optional)	hreflang entries if >50 pages per language
Testing	GSC + external validators

This setup ensures that each blog translation is discoverable, indexable, and properly associated with the correct language audience.

When should you consult a technical SEO expert for international tag setup?

Multilingual SEO requires precision — especially when implementing hreflang and canonical tags across complex site structures. While small sites can manage with standard documentation, larger or custom-built platforms often reach a point where professional consultation becomes necessary.

Signs You Need Expert Help

1. Multi-CMS or Multi-Platform Environments

If your site runs on multiple content systems (e.g., WordPress + Shopify), syncing hreflang logic becomes complex.

2. JavaScript-Rendered Pages

When language variations load dynamically or rely on JS frameworks, crawlers may not see correct hreflang or canonical data.

3. Ongoing Indexing Problems

If specific versions of pages are not being indexed correctly despite proper markup, an audit may be needed.

4. Cross-Language Conflicts

Canonical tags pointing between different languages, or hreflang tags failing validation repeatedly, are red flags.

5. Scaled Localized Content (20+ languages)

Manual implementation becomes unsustainable at this scale — experts can automate hreflang mapping via sitemaps or headless CMS setups.

Expert Consultation Checklist

Unexplained drops in traffic on localized pages
Conflicting canonical and hreflang signals
Duplicate indexing across regional versions
Lack of hreflang return tags in audit tools
Multiple teams managing different regions

What to Expect From a Consultant

Full hreflang + canonical audit
Template and tag correction across CMSs
XML sitemap structuring for scale
Post-implementation validation and monitoring

Budget Ranges

Engagement Type	Approximate Cost (USD)
One-time audit (small site)	$500–1,500
Enterprise CMS integration	$2,500–10,000+
Monthly consulting retainer	$1,000–3,000/mo

Where to Find Help

Aleyda Solis ( https://www.oleyda.com/ )
Freelancers on Upwork, Codeable, or Credo
SEO agencies with international experience (e.g., Distilled, Builtvisible)
Google’s Partner Directory

Consulting a technical SEO expert is not just a cost — it’s a risk-reduction investment when managing complex, multilingual ecosystems.

Conclusion: Best practices for using hreflang and canonical without SEO conflict

When implemented correctly, hreflang and canonical tags form the backbone of multilingual SEO. But even small mistakes in their relationship can mislead search engines and cost visibility. This summary brings together all key recommendations for error-free usage.

Do’s and Don’ts

Practice	Do ✅	Don’t ❌
Canonical implementation	Use self-referencing on all localized pages	Don’t canonicalize across languages
Hreflang setup	Map all versions, include return links	Don’t skip reciprocal references
Tag placement	Use in or XML sitemap	Don’t mix relative/absolute URLs
Language codes	Follow ISO 639-1 + ISO 3166-1 standard	Avoid invented or incorrect region tags
Testing	Validate using GSC + external tools	Don’t assume code is working by default

Expert Takeaways

“Canonical should define preferred page per market — not a global master.” — Aleyda Solis

“When in doubt, let every version stand on its own, and use hreflang to connect them.” — John Mueller, Google

Links to Documentation

Google: Localized content & hreflang guide
Ahrefs: Hreflang Implementation Guide
Moz: Canonical Tags Explained
TechnicalSEO: Hreflang Testing Tool

Hreflang Canonical: How to Use Both Tags Without Conflicts

What is the purpose of hreflang and canonical tags in SEO?

What is the hreflang tag?

Purpose:

Basic Format:

Example Use Case:

What is the canonical tag?

Purpose:

Basic Format:

Example Use Case:

Key Differences

Google’s Official Definition

Can hreflang and canonical tags be used on the same page?

Google’s Official Stance

Why This Matters

Best Practice Structure

Example:

John Mueller on Canonical + Hreflang

What are the most common SEO mistakes with hreflang and canonical implementation?

Misconfigured Canonical Tags

❌ Canonical Points to Another Language Version

❌ Missing Canonical Tag on Variant URLs

Broken Hreflang Return Tags

❌ One-Way Hreflang References

❌ Incorrect Language or Region Codes

Cross-Tag Conflicts

❌ Canonical Points Elsewhere While Hreflang Suggests Alternates

Deployment Errors

❌ Hreflang Missing on Mobile Versions

❌ Using Relative URLs

How does Google treat canonical tags when hreflang is also present?

Google's Priority Logic

Key Principle:

Indexing Flow

Correct Behavior

Example: Correct Setup

Example: Incorrect Setup

Real-World Confirmation

Summary

What’s the best practice when combining canonical and hreflang on localized pages?

Different URLs for Different Languages/Regions

Best Practices:

Example (on /fr/ page):

Same URL, Different Regions (Geo-Targeting via GSC)

Best Practices:

Example:

Additional Best Practices

Should self-referencing canonicals be used with hreflang tags?

Purpose of Self-Referencing Canonicals

Google’s Official Guidance

Example: Correct Setup with Self-Canonical + Hreflang

What You Should Avoid

Example of a Broken Setup:

Summary

Can canonical and hreflang tags cause indexing issues?

Why Conflicts Occur

Conflict Scenarios and Their Impact

Scenario 1: Canonical Points to a Master Page Across Languages

Scenario 2: hreflang Present but No Self-Canonical

Scenario 3: Mixed Signals in Templates

Google’s Position

How to Prevent Indexing Issues

What tools can help audit hreflang and canonical tag usage?

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

Sitebulb

Ahrefs

Google Search Console

Comparison Table

How should canonicals be handled in alternate language URLs?

Key Principle

Google’s Recommendation

When to Use Canonicals in Language URLs

Example: Correct Usage in French Page

Common Mistakes

Pattern for Canonical + hreflang Pairing

Recap

What are the risks of using canonical to point across languages?

What Happens When You Canonicalize Across Languages?

Example of a Bad Setup

Google’s Statement