Which is better /section/ or section/index.php?
-
I have noticed that Google has started to simply link to /section/ as opposed to /section/index.php and I haven't changed any canonical tags etc.
I have looked at my pages moz authority for the two /section/ = 28/100
/section/index.php = 42/100How would I go about transferring the authority to /section/ from /section/index.php to hopefully help me in my organic serp positions etc.
Any insight would be great
-
Would it be possible to do a redirect from /section/index.php to just /section/ without causing a completely pointless infinite loop etc....
-
Cheers guys
-
What Dave said.
/index.php, .html, .htm, .asp, et al, are all pretty much outdated now. Not in the way that the pages wont get spidered and indexed, but URL's are certainly much cleaner when they are like this page, for example:
http://moz.com/community/q/which-is-better-section-or-section-index-php
Looks much better than http://moz.com/community/q/which-is-better-section-or-section-index-php/index.php
-Andy
-
I constantly look for ways in which to make a difference on the sites I have.
As a rule of thumb, so long as your old inbound links still resolve to the correct place with 301 redirects and there are no old links physically linking to the 301s on your site then you'll be onto a winner.
-
Cheers Dave, would you potentially recommend reworking the sites link infrastructure to point to /section/ as opposed to /section/index.php? or would it not likely make much of a differance? Thanks for the prompt response.
-
Tim,
Google works on relevance as you probably know, index.asp has no relevance to the page content what so ever and therefore section/ would be more preferable to Google and a larger majority of your URL will be made up with your keywords.
Regards
Dave
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
-
Crawling/indexing of near duplicate product pages
Hi, Hope someone can help me out here. This is the current situation: We sell stones/gravel/sand/pebbles etc. for gardens. I will take a type of pebbles and the corresponding pages/URL's to illustrate my question --> black beach pebbles. We have a 'top' product page for black beach pebbles on which you can find different types of quantities (differing from 20kg untill 1600 kg). There is not any search volume related to the different quantities The 'top' page does not link to the pages for the different quantities The content on the pages for the different quantities is not exactly the same (different price + slightly different content). But a lot of the content is the same. Current situation:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMAGARD
- Most pages for the different quantities do not have internal links (about 95%) But the sitemap does contain all of these pages. Because the sitemap contains all these URL's, google frequently crawls them (I checked the logfiles) and has indexed them. Problems: Google spends its time crawling irrelevant pages --> our entire website is not that big, so these quantity URL's kind of double the total number of URL's. Having url's in the sitemap that do not have an internal link is a problem on its own All these pages are indexed so all sorts of gravel/pebbles have near duplicates. My solution: remove these URL's from the sitemap --> that will probably stop Google from regularly crawling these pages Putting a canonical on the quantity pages pointing to the top-product page. --> that will hopefully remove the irrelevant (no search volume) near duplicates from the index My questions: To be able to see the canonical, google will need to crawl these pages. Will google still do that after removing them from the sitemap? Do you agree that these pages are near duplicates and that it is best to remove them from the index? A few of these quantity pages do have intenral links (a few procent of them) because of a sale campaign. So there will be some (not much) internal links pointing to non-canonical pages. Would that be a problem? Thanks a lot in advance for your help! Best!1 -
Putting my content under domain.com/content, or under related categories: domain.com/bikes/content ?
Hello This questions plays on what Joe Hall talked about during this years' MozCon: Rethinking Information Architecture for SEO and Content Marketing. My Case:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo
So.. we're working out guidelines and templates for a costumer (sporting goods store) on how to publish content (articles, videos, guides) on their category pages, product pages, and other pages. At this moment I have 2 choices:
1. Use a url-structure/information architecture where all the content is placed in one subfolder, for example domain.com/content. Although it's placed here, there's gonna be extensive internal linking from /content to the related category pages, so the content about bikes (even if it's placed under domain.com/bikes) will be just as visible on the pages related to bikes. 2. Place the content about bikes on a subdirectory under the bike category, **for example domain.com/bikes/content. ** The UX/interface for these two scenarios will be identical, but the directories/folder-hierarchy/url structure will be different. According to Joe Hall, the latter scenario will build up more topical authority and relevance towards the category/topic, and should be the overall most ideal setup. Any thoughts on which of the two solutions is the most ideal? PS: There is one critical caveat her: my costumer uses many url-slugs subdirectories for their categories, for example domain.com/activity/summer/bikes/, which means the content in the first scenario will be 4 steps away from the home page. Is this gonna be a problem? Looking forward to your thoughts 🙂 Sigurd, INEVO0 -
What is better for Meta description ??
Hi everybody, I noticed that a lot of websites prefer their meta description would be the first words of the content inside.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | roeesa
I on the other hand thought that google will prefer the meta description to be like a peek to what going to be inside.
anyone can explain me, what is better? Thanks 🙂0 -
Only the mobile version of the site is being indexed
We've got an interesting situation going on at the moment where a recently on-boarded clients site is being indexed and displayed, but it's on the mobile version of the site that is showing in serps. A quick rundown of the situation. Retail shopping center with approximately 200 URLS Mobile version of the site is www.mydomain.com/m/ XML sitemap submitted to Google with 202 URLs, 3 URLS indexed Doing site:www.mydomain.com in a Google search brings up the home page (desktop version) and then everything else is /m/ versions. There is no rel="canonical" on mobile site pages to their desktop counterpart (working on fixing that) We have limited CMS access, but developers are open to working with us on whatever is needed. Within desktop site source code, there are no "noindex, nofollow, etc" issues on the pages. No manual actions, link issues, etc Has anyone ever encoutnered this before? Any input or thoughts are appreciated. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GregWalt0 -
Website/SEO Audit Needed
We've been outsourcing our link building to India for the past 3 years and the results were pretty good up until beginning of this year. What they were essentially doing is putting links into directories, a few per month, and posting a few articles per month. Out of our top 10 keywords, 8 got into top 10. Then something happened around Jan 1 last year, our ranking started dropping, falling out of the top 50, before settling around 20-30ish. We disavowed most of the low quality links since then. Also, very odd, all the top ranking competitors all fell (including me) and were replaced by less "specialized" companies who sold a broad range of products (for example: all parts of the car, rather than someone who just focused on mufflers). Theres also other differences but again I can't put a finger on it. I'd like to find someone who can do a detailed audit of our site, and our competitors, what happened to cause the drop, and why the new top positions sites are ranked high. And I really don't have time to do an audit myself. Our site is American Hospitality Furniture dot com. Any feed back would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AHH8880 -
New Web Page Not Indexed
Quick question with probably a straightforward answer... We created a new page on our site 4 days ago, it was in fact a mini-site page though I don't think that makes a difference... To date, the page is not indexed and when I use 'Fetch as Google' in WT I get a 'Not Found' fetch status... I have also used the'Submit URL' in WT which seemed to work ok... We have even resorted to 'pinging' using Pinglar and Ping-O-Matic though we have done this cautiously! I know social media is probably the answer but we have been trying to hold back on that tactic as the page relates to a product that hasn't quite launched yet and we do not want to cause any issues with the vendor! That said, I think we might have to look at sharing the page socially unless anyone has any other ideas? Many thanks Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomKing0 -
Website not being indexed after relocation
I have a scenario where a 'draft' website was built using Google Sites, and published using a Google Sites sub domain. Consequently, the 'same' website was rebuilt and published on its own domain. So effectively there were two sites, both more or less identical, with identical content. The first website was thoroughly indexed by Google. The second website has not been indexed at all - I am assuming for the obvious reasons ie. that Google is viewing it as an obvious rip-off of the first site / duplicate content etc. I was reluctant to take down the first website until I had found an effective way to resolve this issue long-term => ensuring that in future Google would index the second 'proper' site. A permanent 301 redirect was put forward as a solution - however, believe it or not, the Google Sites platform has no facility for implementing this. For lack of an alternative solution I have gone ahead and taken down the first site. I understand that this may take some time to drop out of Google's index, however, and I am merely hoping that eventually the second site will be picked up in the index. I would sincerely appreciate an advice or recommendations on the best course of action - if any! - I can take from here. Many thanks! Matt.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | collectedrunning0 -
Webmaster Index Page significant drop
Has anyone noticed a significant drop in indexed pages within their Google Webmaster Tools sitemap area? We went from 1300 to 83 from Friday June 23 to today June 25, 2012 and no errors are showing or warnings. Please let me know if anyone else is experiencing this and suggestions to fix this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | datadirect0