Trailing Slashes In Url use Canonical Url or 301 Redirect?
-
I was thinking of using 301 redirects for trailing slahes to no trailing slashes for my urls.
EG: www.url.com/page1/ 301 redirect to www.url.com/page1
Already got a redirect for non-www to www already.
Just wondering in my case would it be best to continue using htacces for the trailing slash redirect or just go with Canonical URLs?
-
You are absolutely correct Kevin. By deciding to use a specific URL format on your site and consistently using the same format in all internal links you have done everything in your control. The overwhelming majority of the external links to your site will be correct.
Additionally, the links which use the wrong format will then be 301'd to their correct format rather then offering a 404 error. Only a very small percentage of links should require redirection and those that do will get it.
-
Hey Ryan,
Question here, but first the lead in. As you know, 301 redirects don't pass on 100% of link juice. I've set up my site to redirect all non-ww to www and all URLs to include a trailing slash. So now what happens to ranking when sites that link to my site don't include either the www or the trailing slash, which is actually quite common? Of course, asking the site owner to correct the link is ideal, but that's not always possible. So if thousands of links on external sites are linking to http://www.site.com instead of http://www.site.com/, won't lots of link juice get Lost in Redirection?
Kevin
-
Well never hurts to do both, thanks will look into runing both cononical and 301's
-
That's up to you, but I prefer to use both. The 301 redirect, once set up, should always work. At times a site experiences an issue whereby a .htaccess file is deleted, overwritten or modified accidentally. When that happens the issue may not be immediately discovered. Lots of headaches can be caused this way.
The canonical tag helps minimize the damage in this case, and also helps with the natural variations websites have such as a "print" version of a page.
-
Thanks Ryan, I suppose I'll leave out the Conanical tags
-
In my experience a 301 redirect is always the superior course of action. One reason is with a 301 redirect, you will ensure those who create links to your site will use the proper URL format. This way, your links go directly to the proper page without losing any link juice to a redirect.
Canonical tags are a great backup in case something goes wrong, but 301 redirects are always preferable.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
301 Redirects
Looking for the best way to do the following. Business has changed its name, and has also become a corporate store. The old domain name is now no longer needed as a website page has been created inside the main corporate site. Obviously i dont want to loose all the traffic that we had and want to redirect them but there is a problem, that im unable to redirect the old domain to the new one due to office 365 installed on the hosting platform, and the old emails will need to run for another 6 months. I can remove the old site and put a landing page up, but i still need to redirect all the pages to the new site, and there is approx 50+ of them. My main question is i currently have atleast 50+ redirects already in there due to seo changes over the years, some would go back atleast 5 years, whats a safe amount of time that i can remove the older redirects And am i going about this the right way so i dont loose all the hard work on rankings etc
Technical SEO | | Dunjoko0 -
301 redirect relative or absolute path?
Hello everyone, Recently we've changed the URL structure on our website, and of course we had to 301 redirect the old urls to the coresponding new ones. The way the technical guys did this is: "http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "/new-url.html"
Technical SEO | | Silviu
meaning as a relative redirect path, not an absolute one like this:
"http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "http://www.domain.com/new-url.html" This happened for few thousands urls, and the fact is the organic traffic dropped for those pages after this change. (no other changes were made on these pages and the new urls are as seo friendly as possible, A grade on On-Page Grader). The question is: does the relative redirect negatively affects seo, or it counts the same as an absolute path redirect? Thanks,
S.0 -
Static site to wordpress - avoiding 301 redirects
Moving our static website to wordpress, pages currently end in the .htm extension and for reasons of me having to do all the moving myself and wanting to preserve link equity is there any way I can run the pages with a .htm extension in Wordpress? Tried using a plug-in by Daddy Design but it seems a bit hit and miss at times. I basically need to keep the url's the same as I will not be able to get the vast majority of my links altered to the new pages, plus I am doing this by myself!
Technical SEO | | Jon-C0 -
I have altered a url as it was too long. Do I need to do a 301 redirect for the old url?
Crawl diagnostics has shown a url that is too long on one of our sites. I have altered it to make it shorter. Do I now need to do a 301 redirect from the old url? I have altered a url previously and the old url now goes to the home page - can't understand why. Anyone know what is best practice here? Thanks
Technical SEO | | kingwheelie0 -
Does 301 redirect cause penalty
Good Morning, I am considering doing a 301 (permanent) re-direct of roughly 100 domains, split between my 3 main e-commerce sites. Would taking an action like this put any of the 100 domains or any of the 3 recipient domains at risk of violating G's guidelines? Thanks...
Technical SEO | | Prime851 -
Canonical URL Issue
Hi Everyone, I'm fairly new here and I've been browsing around for a good answer for an issue that is driving me nuts here. I tried to put the canonical url for my website and on the first 5 or 6 pages I added the following script SEOMoz reported that there was a problem with it. I spoke to another friend and he said that it looks like it's right and there is nothing wrong but still I get the same error. For the URL http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html I used the following: <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html" /> Is there anything wrong with it? Many thanks in advance for the attention to my question.. 🙂 Alex
Technical SEO | | influxmedia0 -
301 redirect dropped page rank
Hi, We have a www domain that I have changed to a non www domain. The www domain had been in place for some time and had a good page rank, PR4. After this change the page rank dropped significantly (PR0, and now recently back to PR2) despite it being a 301 redirect which I thought "should" carry over the page rank. Yes, I am aware I should have just left it be. Hind sight 20/20 .. ya ya ya 🙂 My questions Is the 301 the correct method for this? Why did the page rank drop despite the 301? Should we go back to the www domain at this point? Thanks Kris
Technical SEO | | adriot0 -
Should I use www. or not in my main URL?
I have backlinks coming into my homepage, which has both a www. URL and one that's merely http://mysite.com. Which is the preferred URL for best optimization for search engines and how do I find this out?
Technical SEO | | NetPicks0