301 redirect or rel=canonical
-
On my site, which I created with Joomla, there seems to be a lot of duplicated pages. I was wondering which would be better, 301 redirect or rel=canonical.
On SeoMoz Pro "help" they suggest only the rel=canonical and dont mention 301 redirect. However, ive read many other say that 301 redirect should be the number one option.
Also, does 301 redirect help solve the crawling errors, in other words, does it get rid of the errors of "duplicate page content?"
Ive read that re-=canonical does not right?
Thanks!
-
No worries Kyu! Just a funny thing about the internet
Sounds like you are doing some great digging today and are being smart about it. I hope it resolves your issues.
Thanks for being thoughtful.
-
Hi Owen,
The first thumbs down was not me. I thought maybe that I did it on accident so I pushed it again thinking it would negate it, but it added another thumbs down. So Im pretty sure the first one was not me....unless ur allowed to thumbs down twice....
I will try to find a way to undo the thumbs down i did on accident.
Sorry about that and I definitely do appreciate your willingness to help. I am not sure who gave u the thumbs down
Edit: I replaced the thumbs down with a thumbs up
-
Interesting that someone would take the time to thumbs down my post.
That kind of behavior definitely gives me less desire to help people out.
-
301 redirects basically tell browsers (and search engines) - "Hey this page no longer exists at this URL it is now located here" statistically, you also lose 1-10% of link juice when you 301 redirect a page, and, for duplicate content issues, should be avoided unless it's absolutely necessary.
The rel=canonical tag, however, is a way to tell search engines the preferred version of a given URL. The good thing about this is that you don't lose link juice, and generally it is the least intrusive way to implement a fix to duplicate content issues.
If you were to implement a 301 redirect, you'd have to consider that all of these URLs are different (duplicate content wise) and would need a redirect implemented to a single url:
http://domain.com/sample-page/
http://domain.com/Sample-Page/
etc...etc...etc...
You can see that it can get tedius. By setting will get you the desired results much easier, than implementing tons of 301s.
Hope this helps
-
Thanks for that!
Do you know if SEOmoz crawlers can pick up redirects?
In other words, will errors still come up when the SEOMOZ crawls?
-
Canonical tends to be the easiest/quickest method to address these issues. The main difference is that with a 301 the user and the search engine experience the same thing. Whereas with a canonical a user could still access the duplicate page - which in some cases might not be the best user experience. Also, Bing does not follow the directive of a canonical tag.
Here is a good background from Google:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
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
-
Rel=Canonical Vs. 301 for blog articles
Over the last few years, my company has acquired numerous different companies -- some of which were acquired before that. Some of the products acquired were living on their previous company's parent site vs. having their own site dedicated to the product. The decision has been made that each product will have their own site moving forward. Since the product pages, blog articles and resource center landing pages (ex. whitepapers LPs) were living on the parent site, I'm struggling with the decision to 301 vs. rel=canonical those pages (with the new site being self canonicaled). I'm leaning toward take-down and 301 since rel=canonicals are simply suggestions to Google and a new domain can get all the help it can to start ranking. Are there any cons to doing so?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mfcb0 -
Will 301 Redirects Slow Page Speed?
We have a lot of subdomains that we are switching to subfolders and need to 301 redirect all the pages from those subdomains to the new URL. We have over 1000 that need to be implemented. So, will 301 redirects slow the page speed regardless of which URL the user comes through? Or, as the old urls are dropped from Google's index and bypassed as the new URLs take over in the SERPs, will those redirects then have no effect on page speed? Trying to find a clear answer to this and have yet to find a good answer
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MJTrevens0 -
Suggested approach (support) for 301 redirects in event of an acquisition
If an agency has recently been acquired by a new organisation, it will need to be redirected to the new organisation's website as soon as possible. We are aware of the need to 301 redirect all pages (domain authority) across to the current domain of the new organisation's website. The new organisation has less pages than our Agency site however, so we cannot point 301 redirects at page level. Would you therefore advise, A, B or C?: A) Redirecting all pages including all blog posts/services pages etc across from the agency site to the new organisation's domain? * new organisation does not have /blog or /services pages. -Will we lose authority if redirecting from pages of our agency site to the new organisation's top level domain? B) Ensure that the new organisation secures hosting of the agency website, and place a holding page on the Agency website directing visitors through to the new organisation for the interim, until we have a /blog, /services page on the new organisation's site? C) Place 301 redirects from agency across to new organisation, and look moving forward (when pages have been put in place on new organisation website) to retrospectively repoint 301 redirects from top level domain of new organisation's site to the new pages which have just been created on the new organisation's site? Any pointers here would be appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tangent0 -
Is it bad I have a cluster of canonical urls that 301 re-direct?
Just went through a migration. We have a group of canonical URLs that are NOT the preferred url, but 301 re-direct to the preferred URL. Does this essentially "break even" and the incorrect canonical URL becomes obsolete? And/or would this be considered potentially bad and confusing for bots?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lunavista-comm0 -
Canonical Rel .uk and .au to .com site?
Hi guys, we have a client whose main site is .com but who has a .co.uk and a com.au site promoting the same company/brand. Each site is verified locally with a local address and phone but when we create content for the sites that is universal, should I rel=canonical those pages on the .co.uk and .com.au sites to the .com site? I saw a post from Dr. Pete that suggests I should as he outlines pretty closely the situation we're in: "The ideal use of cross-domain rel=canonical would be a situation where multiple sites owned by the same entity share content, and that content is useful to the users of each individual site." Thanks in advance for your insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wcbuckner0 -
What does this kind of rel="canonical" mean?
It looks like our CMS may not be configured correctly as there is an empty section in the rel="canonical" rel="canonical" href="{page_uri}" /> Will having the above meta tag be harmful to our SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | voicesdotcom0 -
Alternative to rel canonical?
Hello there, we have a problem. Let's say we have a website www.mainwebsite.com Then you have 40 websites like this: www.retailer1.mainwebsite.com www.retailer2.mainwebsite.com www.retailer3.mainwebsite.com www.retailer4.mainwebsite.com www.retailer5.mainwebsite.com www.retailer6.mainwebsite.com … an so on In order to avoid the duplicate content penalty from Google we've added a rel="canonical" in each 40 sub-websites mapping each page of them to www.mainwebsite.com Our issue is that now, all our retailers (each owner of www.retailer-X.mainwebsite.com) are complaining about the fact that they are disappeared from Google. How can we avoid to use rel="canonical" in the sub-website and not being penalised by Google for duplicate content in www.mainwebsite.com? Many thanks, all your advices are much appreciated. YESdesign team
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | YESdesign0 -
2-stage 301 redirects
Dear colleagues, I have quite an unusual situation with one of my client's websites, and I could use an advise from someone who experienced the same circumstances: They are currently planning on launching a new site under the same domain (by September), when several key current pages are intended to be replaced with new equivalent pages under new URLs. So far it's pretty simple, BUT - due to a merger with another company they will be migrating their entire website to a different domain within a year. My question is - what would be the optimal solution for redirects? We are considering a 301 from the current pages to the new pages under the same domain, and once the new domain is activated - aside from defining 301 redirects from the new pages under the same domain to the new domain, we will cancel the original 301 from the old pages to the new pages on the same domain, and instead define new 301 for those pages to the new domain. What do you think? Is there a better solution - like using 302 redirects for the first stage? Has anyone tried such a procedure? Your input will be highly appreciated! Thanks in advance, Omer
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Usearch0