Duplicate content issue index.html vs non index.html
-
Hi
I have an issue. In my client's profile, I found that the "index.html" are mostly authoritative than non "index.html", and I found that www. version is more authoritative than non www. The problem is that I find the opposite situation where non "index.html" are more authoritative than "index.html" or non www more authoritative than www.
My logic would tell me to still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html". Am I right?
and in the case I find the opposite happening, does it matter if I still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html"?
The same question for www vs non www versions?
Thank you
-
Yes, I like using rewrites in an .htaccess file, which is covered in the links above.
-
I fix the 2 URLs.
In this case domain.com/index.html is the code for domain.com/.
Do you mean to use mode_rewrite and create a 301 redirect from domain.com/index.html to domain.com/ ?
Thank you for your time.
-
<colgroup><col span="30" width="64"></colgroup>
Hi Taysir, first of all ypou must take an overview with what is duplicate content? Solving the cannonical problems with www. Duplicate Content Issues in www & non www I hope that your query had been solved. -
It's very likely that the "index.html" version is more authoritative because you're using it in internal links. The problem is that that often creates a duplication issue - you refer to the root (non-index.html) version in inbound links, social, etc. (and people tend to link and bookmark the root version), but then link internally to "index.html", so Google will end up indexing both.
If the authority is coming from internal links, and you:
(1) Switch the internal links to the root ("/")
(2) 301-redirect "index.html" to the root ("/")
...you shouldn't lose any authority, as you'll have re-routed it by doing step (1). You'll also consolidate your signals and be better off all-around, IMO.
Kane's right, though - it's a bit tough to tell without knowing the specifics.
-
Redirecting the authoritative link to the less authoritative URL is not ideal.
However, in my opinion being consistent with URLs throughout the site takes precedent.
Implementing 301 redirects will indicate that there has been a permanent relocation of that pages content, and you will get most of the link value from the authoritative link. That said, if you feel comfortable emailing the person who created that authoritative link, it's worth a little effort to ask them to change it, but if it's a hassle to do so, don't push it.
-
How to redirect domain.com/index.html to domain.com/index.html?
Those two URLs are the same, so there is nothing to change. If you wanted to redirect domain.com/index.html to domain.com/ then you would do so with 301 redirects. Here's a guide on getting started:
http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/url-rewrites-and-301-redirects-how-does-it-all-work
-
I personally would rewrite & redirect everything using the 2nd option above.
Can you explain me how to do that, please?
How to redirect domain.com/index.html to domain.com?
Thanks
-
thank you for your detailed answer but one more thing does it matter if I redirect a more authoritative link to a weaker one for the benefit of staying consistent and vice versa?
let s say I redirect a non index.html to an index.html and vice versa for the sake of consistency?
-
You should stick with one format across the site:
-
domain.com/index.html and domain.com/subfolder/index.html
**OR **
I typically choose the second option because it is agnostic of CMS or file type, and it looks better in my opinion. I would not mix the two across the site because it causes a confusing user experience.
So, to answer your questions directly:
My logic would tell me to still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html". Am I right?
No, not necessarily. By telling us that there are examples where .html is more authoritative and there are examples where it isn't as authoritative, it's impossible for us to say which is the better choice. I personally would rewrite & redirect everything using the 2nd option above.
**The same question for www vs non www versions? **
I believe that WWW vs non-WWW is less important. You could decide based upon which format has more links or which one has been historically used. Consistency (using the same across the entire site), proper 301 redirects, and proper rel canonical tags are your priorities here.
-
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
-
Content Issues: Duplicate Content
Hi there
Technical SEO | | Kingagogomarketing
Moz flagged the following content issues, the page has duplicate content and missing canonical tags.
What is the best solution to do? Industrial Flooring » IRL Group Ltd
https://irlgroup.co.uk/industrial-flooring/ Industrial Flooring » IRL Group Ltd
https://irlgroup.co.uk/index.php/industrial-flooring Industrial Flooring » IRL Group Ltd
https://irlgroup.co.uk/index.php/industrial-flooring/0 -
Indexing Issue of Dynamic Pages
Hi All, I have a query for which i am struggling to find out the answer. I unable to retrieve URL using "site:" query on Google SERP. However, when i enter the direct URL or with "info:" query then a snippet appears. I am not able to understand why google is not showing URL with "site:" query. Whether the page is indexed or not? Or it's soon going to be deindexed. Secondly, I would like to mention that this is a dynamic URL. The index file which we are using to generate this URL is not available to Google Bot. For instance, There are two different URL's. http://www.abc.com/browse/ --- It's a parent page.
Technical SEO | | SameerBhatia
http://www.abc.com/browse/?q=123 --- This is the URL, generated at run time using browse index file. Google unable to crawl index file of browse page as it is unable to run independently until some value will get passed in the parameter and is not indexed by Google. Earlier the dynamic URL's were indexed and was showing up in Google for "site:" query but now it is not showing up. Can anyone help me what is happening here? Please advise. Thanks0 -
Removing Personal content from Google Index
Hi everyone, A user is complaining that her name is appearing in google search through our job ads site, so I removed such ads through Search Console, but the problem is not the ads anymore but our internal search results. The ads are no longer live but our searches has been indexed by google back then, We have been manually taking over 500 pages that included such name but more and more keep coming through pagination, we haven't found a pattern yet so pretty much any search result might have contained such name. We might get some legal issues here, did you guys got into anything similar before? We have just set some rules so that this doesn't happen again, but still can't find a way to deal with this one. Thanks in advance. PD: Not sure if this is the right category to fit it.
Technical SEO | | JoaoCJ0 -
Duplicate content warning for a hierarchy structure?
I have a series of pages on my website organized in a hierarchy, let's simplify it to say parent pages and child pages. Each of the child pages has product listings, and an introduction at the top (along with an image) explaining their importance, why they're grouped together, providing related information, etc.
Technical SEO | | westsaddle
The parent page has a list of all of its child pages and a copy of their introductions next to the child page's title and image thumbnail. Moz is throwing up duplicate content warnings for all of these pages. Is this an actual SEO issue, or is the warning being overzealous?
Each child page has tons of its own content, and each parent page has the introductions from a bunch of child pages, so any single introduction is never the only content on the page. Thanks in advance!0 -
Duplicate Page Content for sorted archives?
Experienced backend dev, but SEO newbie here 🙂 When SEOmoz crawls my site, I get notified of DPC errors on some list/archive sorted pages (appending ?sort=X to the url). The pages all have rel=canonical to the archive home. Some of the pages are shorter (have only one or two entries). Is there a way to resolve this error? Perhaps add rel=nofollow to the sorting menu? Or perhaps find a method that utilizes a non-link navigation method to sort / switch sorted pages? No issues with duplicate content are showing up on google webmaster tools. Thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | jwondrusch0 -
Filter Tag Duplicate Content E-Commerce Issue
Hello, I just launched a new site for a client but am seeing some duplicate content issues in the campaign crawl. It has to do with the drill-down, filter "tags" that helps users find the product they are looking for. You can see them in the sidebar here: http://www.ssmd.com/shop/ In my crawl report this is what is showing up as duplicate content (attached image). How do I keep these widgets from generating duplicate content on the site? Also, not sure if it's important or not, but I am using Wordpress, WooCommerce and Yoast's SEO Tool. Any suggestions are appreciated! Screen%20Shot%202012-10-23%20at%202.56.00%20PM.png
Technical SEO | | kylehungate0 -
301s vs. rel=canonical for duplicate content across domains
Howdy mozzers, I just took on a telecommunications client who has spent the last few years acquiring smaller communications companies. When they took over these companies, they simply duplicated their site at all the old domains, resulting in a bunch of sites across the web with the exact same content. Obviously I'd like them all 301'd to their main site, but I'm getting push back. Am I OK to simply plug in rel=canonical tags across the duplicate sites? All the content is literally exactly the same. Thanks as always
Technical SEO | | jamesm5i0 -
Canonical usage and duplicate content
Hi We have a lot of pages about areas like ie. "Mallorca" (domain.com/Spain/Mallorca), with tabbed pages like "excursion" (domain.com/spain/Mallorca/excursions) and "car rental" (domain.com/Spain/Mallorca/car-rental) etc. The text on ie the "car rental"-page is very similar on Mallorca and Rhodos, and seomoz marks these as duplicate content. This happens on "car rental", "map", "weather" etc. which not have a lot of text but images and google maps inserted. Could i use rel=nex/prev/canonical to gather the information from the tabbed pages? That could show google that the Rhodos-map page is related to Rhodos and not Mallorca. Is that all wrong or/and is there a better way to do this? Thanks, Alsvik
Technical SEO | | alsvik0