Correct linking to the /index of a site and subfolders: what's the best practice? link to: domain.com/ or domain.com/index.html ?
-
Dear all,
starting with my .htaccess file:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.inlinear.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://inlinear.com/$1 [R=301,L]RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.html
RewriteRule ^(.)index.html$ http://inlinear.com/ [R=301,L]1. I redirect all URL-requests with www. to the non www-version...
2. all requests with "index.html" will be redirected to "domain.com/"My questions are:
A) When linking from a page to my frontpage (home) the best practice is?: "http://domain.com/" the best and NOT: "http://domain.com/index.php"
B) When linking to the index of a subfolder "http://domain.com/products/index.php" I should link also to: "http://domain.com/products/" and not put also the index.php..., right?
C) When I define the canonical ULR, should I also define it just: "http://domain.com/products/" or in this case I should link to the definite file: "http://domain.com/products**/index.php**"
Is A) B) the best practice? and C) ?
Thanks for all replies!
Holger -
I think you have it correct there. I always like to end in a slash for index pages
http://inlinear.com/ - this is your home index page
http://inlinear.com/products/ - this is your index page for the /products/ folder/group
http://inlinear.com/products/page.php - this is a page within the /products/folder/group.
Hardly anyone ever sets up index web pages like index.php or index.htm anymore, they are really not needed as they just make the URL longer. End in the slash and make sure that you are consistent with ending with that slash (vs dropping it off) when you link to your index pages.
You would need to test the script you mention that rewrites the URL. It looks like it is making sure that the index page ends in a slash, but I could be wrong.
Side story - I have had a CMS that uses http://inlinear.com/products as the index page for http://inlinear.com/products/ and this creates all kinds of issues
-
Most people are used to not having an index page and the URL simply ending in a slash. So even if you had a non slashed version as your index page, people would link to the slash and then you have to setup 301s to fix that. Otherwise you end up with all kinds of duplicate page issues.
-
I know Google Analytics looks at the slashes to group your content into reports.
So the example index page of http://inlinear.com/products
would NOT be included in reports with all the pages in the /products/ group
e.g. http://inlinear.com/products/page.php
http://inlinear.com/products/anotherpage.php
as /products is not "within" /products/ You then have a report on /products/ that leaves out the index page and this is normally your most important page!
Good luck!
-
-
Thank you, but in practice how does it work without file-extension?
As I understood its fine if I put the following link to link on my homepage-index:
http://inlinear.com/ <--- without anything...
As well when I link to the products page:
http://inlinear.com/products/ <--- again without anything (index.php)
But in case of a specific page for example in the products-folder:
http://inlinear.com/products/my-product-1.php <--- how can I live without extension?
I googled and found this .htaccess code. Seems it takes away .php and ads a "/"... is this the best practice?:
Options +FollowSymLinks -MultiViews
Turn mod_rewrite on
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /Adding a trailing slash
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !/$
RewriteRule . %{REQUEST_URI}/ [L,R=301]RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.php -f
RewriteRule ^(.*?)/?$ /$1.php [L]Is this what you mean?
-
Best practice for all three cases is to never use the file extensions. You should never link to the file extension names, and make sure in your htaccess file that you dont use the file extensions for any reason moving forward. Why?
1. Lets say you decide to re-do your site and it goes from PHP to another language like ASP or something. You would have to redirect your entire site with file extensions and would shoot yourself in the foot with SEO, traffic and anything else. By not using file extensions, you give yourself the flexibility down the road and you can maintain a constant url structure.
2. Indexing may or may not use the file extensions depending on your htaccess/server settings. You would then essentially be running into duplicate content pages and issues, and thereby negatively affecting your site. Plus, it will dilute your individual page authority.
As a side note, just be consistent with your internal linking. Whether you use relative links or not - some discussion can be had around that. But pick a route and go with it, just as long as you dont use the file extensions
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
-
Best Web-site Structure/ SEO Strategy for an online travel agency?
Dear Experts! I need your help with pointing me in the right direction. So far I have found scattered tips around the Internet but it's hard to make a full picture with all these bits and pieces of information without a professional advice. My primary goal is to understand how I should build my online travel agency web-site’s (https://qualistay.com) structure, so that I target my keywords on correct pages and do not create a duplicate content. In my particular case I have very similar properties in similar locations in Tenerife. Many of them are located in the same villa or apartment complex, thus, it is very hard to come up with the unique description for each of them. Not speaking of amenities and pricing blocks, which are standard and almost identical (I don’t know if Google sees it as a duplicate content). From what I have read so far, it’s better to target archive pages rather than every single property. At the moment my archive pages are: all properties (includes all property types and locations), a page for each location (includes all property types). Does it make sense adding archive pages by property type in addition OR in stead of the location ones if I, for instance, target separate keywords like 'villas costa adeje' and 'apartments costa adeje'? At the moment, the title of the respective archive page "Properties to rent in costa adeje: villas, apartments" in principle targets both keywords... Does using the same keyword in a single property listing cannibalize archive page ranking it is linking back to? Or not, unless Google specifically identifies this as a duplicate content, which one can see in Google Search Console under HTML Improvements and/or archive page has more incoming links than a single property? If targeting only archive pages, how should I optimize them in such a way that they stay user-friendly. I have created (though, not yet fully optimized) descriptions for each archive page just below the main header. But I have them partially hidden (collapsible) using a JS in order to keep visitors’ focus on the properties. I know that Google does not rank hidden content high, at least at the moment, but since there is a new algorithm Mobile First coming up in the near future, they promise not to punish mobile sites for a collapsible content and will use mobile version to rate desktop one. Does this mean I should not worry about hidden content anymore or should I move the descirption to the bottom of the page and make it fully visible? Your feedback will be highly appreciated! Thank you! Dmitry
Technical SEO | | qualistay1 -
Site Not Being Indexed
Hey Everyone - I have a site that is being treated strangely by google (at least strange to me) The site has 24 pages in the sitemap - submitted to WMT'S over 30 days ago I've manually triggered google to crawl the homepage and all connecting links as well and submitted a couple individually. Google has been parked the indexing at 14 of the 24 pages. None of the unindexed URL's have Noindex or follow tags on them - they are clearly and easily linked to from other places on the site. The site is a brand new domain, has no manual penalty history and in my research has no reason to be considered spammy. 100% unique handwritten content I cannot figure out why google isn't indexing these pages. Has anyone encountered this before? Know any solutions? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | CRO_first0 -
Blog.furnacefilterscanada.com/ or furnacefilterscanada.com/blog/
My shopping cart does not allow to instal a WordPress blog on a sub-domain like: furnacefilterscanada.com/blog/ But I can host my blog on another server with a sub-domain like: blog.furnacefilterscanada.com In a SEO point of view is there a difference between the 2? Link juice? Page authority? Thank you, BigBlaze
Technical SEO | | BigBlaze2050 -
What's best hosting option for web design company targeting UK market?
Hi, What would be the best hosting company to go with if I want to promote my site in the UK? Right now it's hostgator and I know I'll have to change it. Should I get something located in the UK (logic would suggest it) and rather dedicated server (very expensive, especially if you're using wordpress) or shared hosting will do? Thanks in advance, JJ
Technical SEO | | jjtech0 -
Build links to / or without ./ on root
Hi there for linkbuilding what is better, building with / or without / www.domain.com www.domain.com/ I have been told it depends what your webserver is doing, also i was told they are the same? what does Google see? I know i need to stay consistent, just wondering which practice is better? Any help as always much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | pauledwards0 -
Should I be redirecting a .gov.au domain to a .com/.com.au Marketing URL?
Hi everyone, First time post - what a great community! On a trial at the moment but will definitely be signing up to PRO. The situation I'm helping to promote an event in Australia (lets call it "myevent"). The event also goes by a nickname "myev" (which isn't searched as much as "myevent"). The event for the most part is promoted offline as www.myevent.com. As it currently stands (and appears to have been the case for a number of years), www.myevent.com and www.myevent.com.au 302 redirect to www.mylocation.gov.au/myev The event is pretty much number 1 for keywords around "my event" and "myev", despite little attention being paid to on page optimisation and issues around duplicate content which I intend to fix. The domain being indexed by Google is www.mylocation.gov.au/myev . Open site explorer stats Open Site explorer shows www.mylocation.gov.au/myev as having a strong domain authority, and hundreds of backlinks. www.myevent.com and www.myevent.com.au have domain authorities in the 20s and about 30-40 backlinks each. The conundrum I've had a chat with the IT guys running the site(s) and they mentioned they'll be switching the way the redirects work, so everything goes to www.myevent.com NOT the .gov.au URL. I've done a bit of reading on the forums and understand that 301s should be used in order to pass the juice/authority from the existing domain (in this case www.location.gov.au/mye). I understand not all of this will be passed. What I'm not sure about is which URL should be the final preferred destination. I may not have a choice - www.myevent.com has been the preferred URL for a long time - but want to know if this will affect the performance in search results if the .com.au isn't used as the final destination (even though we would be redirecting from it)? Any suggestions / ideas / help would be most appreciated. I hope this all makes sense - I'm relatively new to the whole SEO world! Best wishes and many thanks.
Technical SEO | | hergs0 -
Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture. The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the Home Page - Converse.com http://www.converse.com Marimekko category page (flash version) http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled) http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google. When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page. ----- Marimekko - Converse All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ... www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached So my issues are… Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages? Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages? Any recommendations on to what to do about this? Thanks, SEOsurfer
Technical SEO | | seosurfer-2883190