Google also indexed trailing slash version - PLEASE HELP
-
Hi Guys,
We redesigned the website and somehow our canonical extension decided to add a trailing slash to all URLs. Previously our canonical URLs didn't have a trailing slash.
During the redesign we haven't changed the URLs. They remained same but we have now two versions indexed. One with trailing slash one without.
I've now fixed the issue and removed the the trailing slash from canonical URLs.
Is this the correct way of fixing it? Will our rankings be effected in a negative way?
Is there anything else I need to do.
The website went live last Tuesday.
Thanks
-
Thats great! The canonical URLs are showing URLs without slash as they are probably reflecting their original URL which is without slash. Hope Google clears them soon..
-
Seems like you got the 301-redirect resolved below - if you've got that in place and fixed the canonical tag, it should be ok. It'll just take some time (usually longer than you'd like) for Google to clear out the pages, especially the deeper ones. If you see gradual de-indexation, though, you'll probably be fine.
-
-
Actual rel="canonical" tags.
-
As soon as we relised everything was fixed. Canonical tag is showing urls without slash and also aplied to htaccess to redirect slash version to non slash version.
<cite>we're using www.shopify.com</cite>
-
-
Could you clarify a couple of things:
(1) When you say canonical URLs, do you mean your internal links, or the actual URLs in your rel="canonical" tags?
(2) If it was just the canonical tags, is everything consistent now (tags, internal links, etc.)?
Since both version will resolve, just fixing the canonical tags (if that's the issue) should be enough - it's just going to take a little time. They should be as effective as a 301-redirect in this case. Either way, though, it can take Google a while to kick out the duplicates. I'd just monitor the index closely and make sure the top-level pages are clearing up (i.e. your home-page and major category duplicates should be disappearing). If that's happening, you're ok - you just need to wait a bit. If that's not happening, then you may have some other mixed signals in play.
-
You are welcome.
Well, the first time you did submit the sitemap right, but now since Google has found new URLs on your website and indexed them, it would be good to notify the big G that they are no longer a part of your website and resubmitting would not hurt.
About the redirections, Google does take a bit of time to understand that the URLs have permanently moved and will gradually remove them from the index. So, keep checking the index for the trailing slash URLs and when they are gone, you can remove the redirections.
Cheers,
-
Thanks a lot.
Now when i click the slash version of the indexed URL from google goes to nonslash version. So it seems we're safe now.
The other thing is when I submitted the sitemap.xml after launch it was without slash. Also all internal links are targeting nonslash URLs. I think google should understand that this is a technical issue and now it has been solved.
When should i remove that redirect?
-
Yups, its done. Just need to be sure if the Home Page is fine. The indexed version of the Home Page stays as it is without any redirection.
Cheers,
-
I checked with this website: http://www.internetofficer.com/seo-tool/redirect-check/
It says:
http://www.mydomain.com/jason.html/
Type of redirect: 301 Moved Permanently
http://www.mydomain.com/jason.html
So looks as if it's done the job. Right?
-
Sounds good, do keep a check to make it 100% sure. I believe the SE's will be fine now.
Cheers,
-
RewriteRule ^([^/]+/)*([^/.]+).html/ http://www.mydomain.com/$2.html [R=301,L]
Looks like above did the trick
-
I think some of these posts can help you understand:
http://html5boilerplate.com/docs/Proper-usage-of-trailing-slash-redirects/
Do try this a test environment and take a backup of the .htaccess file before making any changes, Have it go through a programmer.
Cheers,
-
Please can you tell me how to redirect urls with slash to non slash urls using .htaccess.
-
Jvalops,
This is a common scenario in SEO when you have 2 versions indexed of the same URL. This bascially creates a duplicate issue. Now, this situation has a solution which includes 2 things to implement:
1. Fix it from the search engines's perspective.
2. Make changes at the server level.
You did remove the trailing slash so you fixed it at the server level but you left the search engines to think - Where did the URL go? Am I supposed to show a 404 for that or what?.
So, it is important that you first fix them for the SE's and then make any server level changes because you never know how quick the crawlers can re-visit the disappeared URL and take their own action. Since this is just a recent change I hope that the SE;s will not evaluate it in a negative way but you should be quick to inform them. Now, since you have already removed it, do add a code in the .htaccess file stating that any URL with a slash redirects it to the URL without slash. I hope there are no URLs that have to end with a slash (just have a re-look on this, the home page and others).
After this is done, to make things more clear to the search engines, resubmit your XML sitemap with all the correct URLs on the website and I think you will be just fine.
On the rankings, I don't think it will be affected, unless there was a re-crawl after the indexation.
Cheers,
-
I'm not 100% sure how to answer your question, but an .htaccess 301 might work.
/example.html/ example.html
Try that to see if it works.
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
-
Any risks involved in removing a sub-domain from search index or completely taking down? Ranking impact?
Hi all, One of our sub-domains has thousands of indexed pages but traffic is very less and irrelevant. There are links between this sub-domain to other sub domains of ours. We are planning to take this subdomain completely. What happens if so? Google responds for this with a ranking change? Thanks
Web Design | | vtmoz0 -
Going mobile: Responsive or different mobile version?
Going mobile: Responsive or different mobile version?
Web Design | | FCRMediaLietuva
Which one should we choose? Should we do responsive design or should we have a different mobile version and go m.domain.com ? http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2253965/3-reasons-why-responsive-web-design-is-the-best-option-for-your-mobile-seo-strategy I just read this article. It seems that the responsive design is OK, but the first comment kills that opinion and says that it is pretty hard to make it OK. 🙂 So I need more opinions? What is best for people and for SEO?0 -
Can anyone help me detect some SEO improvements onpage please...
Can anyone help me detect some SEO improvements onpage please... I have shortened the website URl so its not easily found when searched via search engines.. http://goo.gl/GlfMRl Please have a look and give me some tips. Thanks
Web Design | | Nettv0 -
Google text-only vs rendered (index and ranking)
Hello, can someone please help answer a question about missing elements from Google's text-only cached version.
Web Design | | cpawsgo
When using JavaScript to display an element which is initially styled with display:none, does Google index (and most importantly properly rank) the elements contents? Using Google's "cache:" prefix followed by our pages url we can see the rendered cached page. The contents of the element in question are viewable and you can read the information inside. However, if you click the "Text-only version" link on the top-right of Google’s cached page, the element is missing and cannot be seen. The reason for this is because the element is initially styled with display:none and then JavaScript is used to display the text once some logic is applied. Doing a long-tail Google search for a few sentences from inside the element does find the page in the results, but I am not certain that is it being cached and ranked optimally... would updating the logic so that all the contents are not made visible by JavaScript improve our ranking or can we assume that since Google does return the page in its results that everything is proper? Thank you!0 -
CMS dynamicly created pages indexed?
Hey Moz'erz, Looking at the indexed pages of my clients eCommerce website I noticed that dynamically created pages are being indexed. For example this page does not "exist" but is created by a drop down filter menu that sorts by product tag: /collections/tools/TAG I can only conclude that this page got indexed either through a backlink or once upon a time there was an internal link pointing to this URL and got indexed (currently there is not). Are either of these cases possibilities? In either case before considering removal or any action I would of-course reference analytics to check for conversions, traffic and any backlinks for those "pages". I believe at the end of the day is recommend a drop down filer that doesn't create new pages as the best solution. Thoughts, comments and experience is greatly welcomed 🙂
Web Design | | paul-bold0 -
Does Google count the domain name in its 115-character "ideal" URL length?
I've been following various threads having to do with URL length and Google's happiness therewith and have yet to find an answer to the question posed in the title. Some answers and discussions have come close, but none I've found have addressed this with any specificity. Here are four hypothetical URLs of varying lengths and configurations: EXAMPLE ONE:
Web Design | | RScime25
my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (115 characters) EXAMPLE TWO: sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (126 characters) EXAMPLE THREE: www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (130 characters) EXAMPLE FOUR: http://www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (137 characters) Assuming the examples contain appropriate keywords and are linked to appropriate anchor text (etc.,) how would Google look upon each? All I've been able to garner thus far is that URLs should be as short as possible while still containing and contextualizing keywords. I have 500+ URLs to review for the company I work for and could use some guidance; yes, I know I should test, but testing is problematical to the extreme; I look to the collective/accumulated wisdom of the MOZVerse for help. Thanks.1 -
Google Penalizing Websites that Have Contact Forms at Top of Website Page?
Has anyone else heard of Google penalizing websites for having their contact forms located at the top of the website? For example http://www.austintenantadvisors.com/ Look forward to hearing other thoughts on this.
Web Design | | webestate1