Www vs non www - Crawl Error 902
-
I have just taken over admin of my company website and I have been confronted with crawl error 902 on the existing campaign that has been running for years in Moz. This seems like an intermittent problem. I have searched and tried to go over many of the other solutions and non of them seem to help.
The campaign is currently set-up with the url http://companywebsite.co.uk when I tried to do a Moz manual crawl using this URL I got an error message. I changed the link to crawl to http://www.companywebsite.co.uk and the crawl went off without a hitch and im currently waiting on the results. From testing I now know that if i go to the non-www version of my companies website then nothing happens it never loads. But if I go to the www version then it loads right away.
I know for SEO you only want 1 of these URLS so you dont have duplicate content. But i thought the non-www should redirect to the www version. Not just be completely missing.
I tried to set-up a new campaign with the defaults URL being the www version but Moz automatically changed it to the non-www version. It seems a cannot set up a new campaign with it automatically crawling the www version.
Does it sound like im out the right path to finding this cause? Or can somebody else offer up a solution?
Many thanks,
Ben.
-
Glad to hear thats all fixed! Though i will say thats a very slow response time for any development / hosting company typically i would expect a maximum response time of 8 hours.. We try to keep it under 2 heh.
But yes, glad thats working for you now
-
The problem was as you anticipated, after spending a few days chasing the party who actually look after it im pleased to say i checked this morning and all is working as expected.
Thanks very much for your help Toby!
-
Thanks Toby, Ive emailed off, I expect a reply to be a couple of days away (what it normally take them) Thanks for the help thus far and ill message back when they do!
-
In that case that would probably be the best place to start. If you want any evidence for a missing A record, heres a DNS checking tool (it currently throws an error because it can't find an A record).
Let me know what they say
-
I dont have access to the DNS, my access is limited to the Magento CMS, and ftp access to the root folder.
I guess its a case of popping an email off to the guys who built the site and control the web space and getting them to address the issue?
-
Ok, so the file is working, thats a good start!
Looks like we need to go back a step in the request process then. Do you have access to the DNS settings for the http://atp-instrumentation.co.uk domain? If so, please could you check if there is an A record set for it? (looks to be registered through Civica UK Ltd - Whois Report)
What i suspect might be the case is that you're missing an A record for atp-instrumentation.co.uk but that there is one set for the www.atp-instrumentation.co.uk.
I've run a couple of tests against the domain DNS and i get nothing back for the non-www address, which is what suggests that we're not even making it as far as your servers.
To set the A record, you'll be looking for something in your control panel for 'DNS settings' or maybe 'Host Records', you should see in there ether an option to select A record settings, or perhaps a dropdown with things like A, AAA, CNAME etc. You need to:
- select 'A'
- In the domain box type: atp-instrumentation.co.uk
- In the IP box, type: 82.118.110.42
Hopefully that makes sense. If your at all unsure, let me know and i'll do what i can to help more specifically. Domain control panels are so different for each provider its difficult to provide direct instructions without knowing what your panel looks like
-
I added the line and it did indeed break the website, got internal service error etc
So it seems the file is working
-
Just a note here, the Redirects do seem to be working, so it looks like the .htaccess file IS being loaded.
Please check anyway, its possible that the redirects are comming from another location if they have been set elseware as well. From a (very quick) look, the file seems to be formatted correctly so no obvious reason for the www redirects to not be working...
-
Hmm ok,
before i do anything else, we need to make sure that the .htaccess file is actually being loaded. To do that, we need to break it for a second.
at the top of the htaccess file, put something like (specifics dont matter here)
THISisInValid666
What we're trying to do is put some invalid text into the htaccess file so that the site breaks when it loads. The idea being that we can confirm that the .htaccess file is actually being used. So if you put that in and the site throws a 500 error (when navigating to it with or without www) we can confirm that changes we make should work.
If the site continues to load without issue then we know that the .htaccess file isnt in use so we need to look at server configureation directly (specifically the AllowOverrides settings)
Once you have confirmed if it does / doesnt break, remove the line again
-
Thanks Toby, here is the entire HTACCESS file with your fix implemented. Doesn't seem to have worked if i go to
http://atp-instrumentation.co.uk with no www it still fails to load
Edited out to shorten convo
-
You're correct, you can make it a little more generic though, without seeing all of your .htaccess file, try this:
Replace:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^companyname.co.uk [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.companyname.co.uk/$1 [L,R=301]With:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http%{ENV:protossl}://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]This is what could be called a wildcard redirect in that a direct copy paste should work for you with no need to edit. (you dont have to manually add in the correct domain name)
What it does:
- First it checks to see if the requested url has a www in it
- if it does -not- it then runs the rule, otherwise it ignores it.
- The rule first checks for http or https. Then adds in the www. followed by the domain and tld, finally adding the URI (/somepage/page for example).
- the L in square brakets means do not process anything else in the htaccess file
- the R=301 means that it will be a 301 (perminant) redirect.
If that still doesnt work for you, paste up your full .htaccess file, or you can send it to me directly if you'd rather and i'll take another look
-
Thanks Highland,
How do I go about changing this? I believe its to do with the .htacess file.
The website was developed in Magento via an external company who monitor it. Looking in the root folder I can see the htaccess file but it contains a lot lines of code and rewrites that I dont fully understand.
These lines are the one I think could be relevant so far.
############################################
enable rewrites
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^companyname.co.uk [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.companyname.co.uk/$1 [L,R=301]Then there is lots of category pages etc that are 301 redirected
Follow by
RewriteRule ^home http://www.companyname.co.uk/ [R=301,L]Then some more redirects for pages
I know this is specific but is this editable a different way in Magento? Thanks for any help offered i know this is getting more technical
-
You're 100% right. You should have one 301 redirect to the other. While there are some SEO reasons for this (mainly with duplicate content), the best reason is that it's just less confusing to end users to only have one URL to use. If your non-www has trouble loading I would say you need a 301 to the www version.
Moz restricts Top Level Domain (i.e. domain.com) and crawls accordingly. I have some set up with www.domain.com and some with just domain.com. The 301 to the www forces the issue but Moz is smart enough to crawl the proper pages.
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
-
Crawl at a stand still
Hello Moz'ers, More questions about my Shopify migration...it seems that I'm not getting indexed very quickly (it's been over a month since I completed the migration) - I have done the following: used an Seo app to find and complete redirects (right away) used the same app to straighten out title tags, metas and alt tags submitted the sitemap re-submitted my main product URL's via Fetch checked the Console - no reported blocks or crawl errors I will mention that I had to assign my blog to a sub-domain because Shopify's blog platform is awful. I had a lot of 404's on the blog, but fixed those. The blog was not a big source of traffic (I'm an ecomm business) Also, I didn't have a lot of backlinks, and most of those came along anyway. I did have a number of 8XX and 9XX errors, but I spoke to Shopify about them and they found no issues. In the meantime, those issues pretty much disappeared in the MOZ reporting. Any duplicate page issues now have a 200 code since I straightened out the title tags. So what am I missing here? Thanks in advance, Sharon
Technical SEO | | Sharon2016
www.zeldassong.com0 -
Www vs no-www duplicate fix?
Hi all, I have more or less published two versions of our site. One on "www" and one without. And of course we uncovered it during our SEO crawl as "duplicate" content/titles. My guess (hope) is this is something that can be easily fixed on the server side, but I don't have a lot of knowledge around it. Does anyone know?
Technical SEO | | Becky_Converge0 -
Non WWW. versus WWW. versions, current best practice ?
Hi Im increasingly seeing sites not using the www., but understand from various sources including seomoz that best practice is to be on the www. with the non www version 301'd to the www version. Since alot of sites are clearly doing this the other way round now is that better practice or the former still best ? I appreciate that non www version gives you 3 more characters for url's but apart from that is there any benefit over the www. version ? Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Versions of same site with www, no www, ww, and w
It's just come to light that a couple of our clients have both www. and no www versions of their site, with no 301 in place. That's all fine, we're (trying) to get them to sort it. But, strangely, one of our clients not only has the www. and no www, but they also have ww., and w. - all showing their site as normal - the only difference being that the www. and no www are both PR 3 while all other versions are N/A. Does anyone have any idea what's going on/if it's a problem? Thanks very much 🙂
Technical SEO | | Chuck-Boom0 -
Wordpress & use of 'www' vs not for webmaster tools - explanation needed
I am having a hard time understanding the issue of canonization of site pages, specifically in regards to the 'www' or 'non-www' versions of a site. And specifically in regards to wordpress. I can see that it doesn't matter whether you type in 'www' or not in the url for a wordpress site, what is going on in the back end that allows this? When I link up to google webmaster tools, should i use www or not? thanks for any help d
Technical SEO | | dnaynay0 -
Duplicate Content Errors
Ok, old fat client developer new at SEO so I apologize if this is obvious. I have 4 errors in one of my campaigns. two are duplicate content and two are duplicate title. Here is the duplicate title error Rare Currency And Old Paper Money Values and Information.
Technical SEO | | Banknotes
http://www.antiquebanknotes.com/ Rare Currency And Old Paper Money Values and Information.
http://www.antiquebanknotes.com/Default.aspx So, my question is... What do I need to do to make this right? They are the same page. in my page load for default.aspx I have this: this.Title = "Rare Currency And Old Paper Money Values and Information."; And it occurs only once...0 -
Blocking AJAX Content from being crawled
Our website has some pages with content shared from a third party provider and we use AJAX as our implementation. We dont want Google to crawl the third party's content but we do want them to crawl and index the rest of the web page. However, In light of Google's recent announcement about more effectively indexing google, I have some concern that we are at risk for that content to be indexed. I have thought about x-robots but have concern about implementing it on the pages because of a potential risk in Google not indexing the whole page. These pages get significant traffic for the website, and I cant risk. Thanks, Phil
Technical SEO | | AU-SEO0 -
Google causing Magento Errors
I have an online shop - run using Magento. I have recently upgraded to version 1.4, and I installed a extension called Lightspeed, a caching module which makes tremendous improvements to Magento's performance. Unfortunately, a confoguration problem, meant that I had to disable the module, because it was generating errors relating to the session, if you entered the site from any page other than the home page. The site is now working as expected. I have Magento's error notification set to email - I've not received emails for errors generated by visitors. However over a 72 hour period, I received a deluge of error emails, which where being caused by Googlebot. It was generating an erro in a file called lightspeed.php Here is an example: URL: http://www.jacksgardenstore.com/tahiti-vulcano-hammock IP Address: 66.249.66.186 Time: 2011-06-11 17:02:26 GMT Error: Cannot send headers; headers already sent in /home/jack/jacksgardenstore.com/user/jack_1.4/htdocs/lightspeed.php, line 444 So several things of note: I deleted lightspeed.php from the server, before any of these error messages began to arrive. lightspeed.php was never exposed in the URL, at anytime. It was referred to in a mod_rewrite rule in .htaccess, which I also commented out. If you clicked on the URL in the error message, it loaded in the browser as expected, with no error messages. It appears that Google has cached a version of the page which briefly existed whilst Lightspeed was enabled. But I though that Google cached generated HTML. Since when does cache a server-side PHP file ???? I've just used the Fetch as Googlebot facility on Webmaster Tools for the URL in the above error message, and it returns the page as expected. No errors. I've had to errors at all in the last 48 hours, so I'm hoping it's just sorted itself out. However I'm concerned about any Google related implications. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Ben
Technical SEO | | atticus70