How do I get rel='canonical' to eliminate the trailing slash on my home page??
-
I have been searching high and low. Please help if you can, and thank you if you spend the time reading this. I think this issue may be affecting most pages.
SUMMARY: I want to eliminate the trailing slash that is appended to my website.
SPECIFIC ISSUE: I want www.threewaystoharems.com to showing up to users and search engines without the trailing slash but try as I might it shows up like www.threewaystoharems.com/ which is the canonical link.
WHY? and I'm concerned my back-links to the link without the trailing slash will not be recognized but most people are going to backlink me without a trailing slash. I don't want to loose linkjuice from the people and the search engines not being in consensus about what my page address is.
THINGS I"VE TRIED:
(1) I've gone in my wordpress settings under permalinks and tried to specify no trailing slash. I can do this here but not for the home page.
(2) I've tried using the SEO by yoast to set the canonical page. This would work if I had a static front page, but my front page is of blog posts and so there is no advanced page settings to set the canonical tag.
(3) I'd like to just find the source code of the home page, but because it is CSS, I don't know where to find the reference. I have gone into the css files of my wordpress theme looking in header and index and everywhere else looking for a specification of what the canonical page is. I am not able to find it. I'm thinking it is actually specified in the .htaccess file.
(4) Went into cpanel file manager looking for files that contain Canonical. I only found a file called canonical.php . the only thing that seemed like it was worth changing was changing line 139 from $redirect_url = home_url('/'); to $redirect_url = home_url(''); nothing happened. I'm thinking it is actually specified in the .htaccess file.
(5) I have gone through the .htaccess file and put thes 4 lines at the top (didn't redirect or create the proper canonical link) and then at the bottom of the file (also didn't redirect or create the proper canonical link) : RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^([a-z.]+)?threewaystoharems.com$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule .? http://www.%1threewaystoharems.com%{REQUEST_URI} [R=301,L]Please help friends.
-
Having a canonical link pointing to that same url as in the address bar has no affect as far as search engines are concern, the reason moz.com gives for doing this is that if some one scrapes your site, the canonical will point back to the original.
The whole idea of canonical tags and 301's is to do with requests, you want the all requests showing the same content to appear the same page to the search engine.
With normal pages a slash means a different request that without, and to fix it you need to create a 301 that requests again to the correct url. in the process you have lost a bit of link juice.
but when requesting the home page with or without the "/", the request is the same. there is no need to fix it.
press F12 in your browser and test it yourself using the network tab, you can see that entering the url with or without the "/" on the homepage results in the same request.
-
Thank you for your response Alan.
If what you say is true why wouldn't google webmaster tools specifically say that in their article on Canonical links? and why would high pr sites like moz.com feel the need to specify the correct link with a canonical link on their homepage. Just because the browsers read the homepage as the same does not suggest to me that it does not matter if one specifies which is the correct one. The question at hand is not whether it can be read but whether it can be back-linked to properly.
-
If you have a trailing slash, on a url like domain.com/mypage/ then that is a different url to domain.com/mypage
If you fix this with a 301 you lose a bit of link juice in the redirect.
but if you are talking about a homepage url such as domain.com and domain.com/ these are not treated as different urls, there is no redirect between them. there is no problem here, don't worry about it
-
Philip,
You are the man. That totally worked.
I do believe that google is smart enough to see them as the same, I also think it would make sense that they are trying to weed out most people that don't know what they are doing by giving priority rank to websites that backlinks that are consistent with their canonical specification. They say in their support articles that they see the trailing slash and no trailing slash sites as 2 separate sites and that webmasters will be spreading their link juice if they don't specify which one to use. It seems to logically follow that if your web users are linking to the "wrong" page, google is not going to give priority because it signifies that the developer is not properly branding his site and/or hasn't created the user experience to cause it to happen properly. Here are 2 sources where google talks about their stance on canonical links: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en and https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139394?hl=en&ref_topic=2371375 . I'd like to hear any more thoughts on my hypothesis.
-
Dillon,
Thanks for the additional explanation. I do see the canonical tag in your code and see that it is being placed by Yoast's WordPress SEO plugin.
Honestly, you should not worry about the trailing slash. Google and Bing are intelligent enough to understand that .com and .com/ are the same website. You are receiving credit for your backlinks regardless of whether or not the trailing slash exists on the link.
Having said that, here's how you can remove the trailing slash if you still really want to.....
Login to your WordPress backend as an administrator and look for "Plugins" on the left menu and go to "Editor" within the plugins menu. From there, find the dropdown menu near the top right and go to "WordPress SEO". On the list of files that display on the right side, find "wordpress-seo/frontend/class-frontend.php".
In that file, use CTRL + F to find this line of code: $canonical = home_url( '/' );
Remove the / within the ' '
Click on "Update File". Refresh your homepage and you will see that the trailing slash is gone from the canonical tag. Keep in mind, this is a hack. When you update WordPress SEO, this will most likely be overwritten and you'll have to do it again.
-
Hi Philip,
Thank you for your response. I am definitely obsessing, although I'm pretty sure it is not over nothing, and, I would be happy to be proven wrong (it would save me some time) lol.
It is my understanding that a lot of browsers, like Chrome, will remove the slash from their url but just in the graphical user interface because it looks better, while in fact they reading it with the trailing slash at the end. Browser SEAMONKEY does accurately show the trailing slash. The real way to know from the coding is that the page source still shows <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.threewaystoharems.com/" /> , when I really want it to show as <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.threewaystoharems.com" /> (trailing slash omitted). If I were to speculate on what is really going on behind the scenes, is that google knows that most websites are going to default to using a trailing slash and most users are going to link without the trailing slash. It seems to me that google is trying to separate the SEO professionals from the amateurs by seeing these as two different sites and making the professionals have to figure out how to get the trailing slash off of their home pages in order to get their backlinks. If you notice, moz.com 's page source shows no trailing slash on their link rel="canonical" .
Am I crazy? I'm pretty sure I need to figure this out to get my backlinks to link properly.
-
Where are you seeing the trailing slash? If I go to threewaystoharems.com in my browser, there is no trailing slash. I do see a trailing slash if I do a Google search for "site:threewaystoharems.com" but that is normal. Every website will show that trailing slash.
I think you might be obsessing over a non-issue Let me know if i am misunderstanding.
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
-
Put a 301 from /main to home page, now I'm panicking
Hi, Our website is 10 years old, but I only noticed last night we had a https://curveball-media.co.uk/main page which has some badly formatted copy on. I redirected (301) to the home page https://curveball-media.co.uk/ Then I had a slight panic that maybe this was the wrong thing to do and it should be like it was with the home page and the /main page. Should I have left it or did I do the right thing?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | curveballmedia0 -
Rel=canonical Question
Alright, so let's say we've got an event coming up. The URL is website.com/event. On that page, you can access very small pages with small amounts of information, like website.com/event/register, website.com/event/hotel-info, and website.com/event/schedule. These originally came up as having missing meta descriptions, and I was thinking a rel=canonical might be the best approach, but I'm not sure. What do you think? Is there a better approach? Should I have just added a meta description and moved on?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWillner0 -
Changing Canonical Tags on Indexed Pages that are Ranking Well
Hi Guys, I recently rolled out a domain wide canonical tag change. Previously the website had canonical tags without the www, however the website was setup to redirect to www on page load. I noticed that the site competitors were all using www and as far as I understand www versus non www, it's based on preference. In order to keep things consistent, I changed the canonical tag to include the www. Will the site drop in rankings? Especially if the pages are starting to rank quite well. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | QuickToImpress0 -
Canonical's, Social Signals and Multi-Regional website.
Hi all, I have a website that is setup to target different countries by using subfolders. Example /aus/, /us/, /nz/. The homepage itself is just a landing page redirect to whichever country the user belongs to. Example somebody accesses https://domain/ and will be redirected to one of the country specific sub folders. The default subfolder is /us/, so all users will be redirected to it if their country has not been setup on the website. The content is mostly the same on each country site apart from localisation and in some case content specific to that country. I have set up each country sub folder as a separate site in Search Console and targeted /aus/ to AU users and /nz/ to NZ users. I've also left the /us/ version un-targeted to any specific geographical region. In addition to this I've also setup hreflang tags for each page on the site which links to the same content on the other country subfolder. I've target /aus/ and /nz/ to en-au and en-nz respectively and targeted /us/ to en-us and x-default as per various articles around the web. We generally advertise our links without a country code prefix, and the system will automatically redirect the user to the correct country when they hit that url. Example, somebody accesses https://domain/blog/my-post/, a 302 will be issues for https://domain/aus/blog/my-post/ or https://domain/us/blog/my-post/ etc.. The country-less links are advertised on Facebook and in all our marketing campaigns Overall, I feel our website is ranking quite poorly and I'm wondering if poor social signals are a part of it? We have a decent social following on Facebook (65k) and post regular blog posts to our Facebook page that tend to peek quite a bit of interest. I would have expected that this would contribute to our ranking at least somewhat? I am wondering whether the country-less link we advertise on Facebook would be causing Googlebot to ignore it as a social signal for the country specific pages on our website. Example Googlebot indexes https://domain/us/blog/my-post/ and looks for social signals for https://domain/us/blog/my-post/ specifically, however, it doesn't pick up anything because the campaign url we use is https://domain/blog/my-post/. If that is the case, I am wondering how I would fix that, to receive the appropriate social signals /us/blog/my-post/, /aus/blog/my-post/ & /nz/blog/my-post/. I am wondering if changing the canonical url to the country-less url of each page would improve my social signals and performance in the search engines overall. I would be interested to hear your feedback. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | destinyrescue0 -
What is the proper way to execute 'page to page redirection'
I need to redirection every page of my website to a new url of another site I've made. I intend to add:"Redirect 301 /oldpage.html http://www.example.com/newpage.html"I will use the 301 per page to redirect every page of my site, but I'm confused that if I add:"Redirect 301 / http://mt-example.com/" it will redirect all of my pages to the homepage and ignore the URLs i have separately mentioned for redirection.Please guide me.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NABSID0 -
Interlinking vs. 'orphaning' mobile page versions in a dynamic serving scenario
Hi there, I'd love to get the Moz community's take on this. We are working on setting up dynamic serving for mobile versions of our pages. During the process of planning the mobile version of a page, we identified a type of navigational links that, while useful enough for desktop visitors, we feel would not be as useful to mobile visitors. We would like to remove these from our mobile version of the page as part of offering a more streamlined mobile page. So we feel that we're making a fine decision with user experience in mind. On any single page, the number of links removed in the mobile version would be relatively few. The question is: is there any danger in “orphaning” the mobile versions of certain pages because links don’t exist pointing to those pages on our mobile pages? Is this a legitimate concern, or is it enough that none of the desktop versions of pages are orphaned? We were not sure whether it’s even possible, in Googlebot’s eyes, to orphan a mobile version of a page if we use dynamic serving and if there are no orphaned desktop versions of our pages. (We also plan to link to "full site" in the footer.) Thank you in advance for your help,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_R
Eric0 -
Simple Pagination and Rel Canonical
Hello, I am trying to find a solid solution to this. I think it is simple, but trying to think of a good setup for SEO. If you have a paginated result set, page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4. What i am wondering is, should I point my REL CANONICAL page to Page 1 always, so i'm not loosing power from the first page? Domain structure: www.domain.com/search/[term]/page1/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aactive
www.domain.com/search/[term]/page2/ Should I point all pages to page 1, so I don't get watered down as we go farther into the site? Thoughts?0 -
NOINDEX listing pages: Page 2, Page 3... etc?
Would it be beneficial to NOINDEX category listing pages except for the first page. For example on this site: http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/101/fsx-missions/ Has lots of pages such as Page 2, Page 3, Page 4... etc: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aflyawaysimulation.com+fsx+missions Would there be any SEO benefit of NOINDEX on these pages? Of course, FOLLOW is default, so links would still be followed and juice applied. Your thoughts and suggestions are much appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640