Don't understand this ... :-(
-
Hello,
I'm going nuts as I don't understand what's going on with this domain of a client.
We have this classical htaccess redirect
from http://domain.com to http://www.domain.com
But I'm getting Page Authority for both domains, and the non-www, which shouldn't be crawled, is gettting higher PA ..
http://www.myanamar.rundreisen.de - PA 34
http://myanamr-rundreisen.de - PA 36
I attach a file, you see there that google robot is recognizing the 301 redirecht from non-www to www ...
But, the site isn't doing good at all in google, it seems the home page has a penalty ... duplicate content due to non-www and www home page?
So it would be great if somebody has a hint for me ... my client is losing trust in me
Thx!
-
Thanks!
-
Matt Cutts talked about this a few years back....let me find it.
Basically where your server is (minus county specific) doesn't matter to Google.
Google understands that people share servers and it's not that important in the scheme of things. What does matter is server up time.
-
Thanks for your support! I think the last tool reports show a little improvement.
But one more information or possible problem(?): On the same server, in another directory, another site of the client is hosted, which has a very good Google standing for 6 or 7 years.
The HTML structure is similar, and it depends on the same CMS and similar CSS.
So could this be a problem for Google? Should the site be moved to another provider?
Once again thx
Guenter
-
Yes Agreed. I guess its a waiting game for him to see how effective it has been placed.
But in my instances rel=canonical always solved the problem for dup content.
Thanks Darin
-
Yes, both can get indexed especially if preferences and 301s weren't in place the last time Google crawled. I've noticed it takes time for Google to use the canonical on a page. I've seen it take 4 or 5 crawls for it to take effect correctly. But don't forget it's just a suggestion and not a directive. I think Google wants to make sure that it's in the best interest of the site before it adheres to it (just a guess)
Don't forget too that Google will only crawl a portion of a site when it crawls (especially for bigger sites) to make sure it doesn't take up to much bandwidth on your server. The home page may not have been crawled since the element has been put in.
-
Yes, thanks,
I forgot to mention, this was set some weeks ago and in Google's cached cersion the rel=canonical tag ist in the source code, so they should habe the newest page.
Just edited the post above a few seconds after your question
-
Yes, how long ago did you set this?
Has google since indexed your page
-
Thanks, I've set since a couple of weeks
<link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/](view-source:http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/)" /> That should be fine?
-
Thanks, yes, the preferred domain ist set to www
-
Darin has a good point. Set your preferences
Also Rel=canonical
Darin if i am not mistaken maybe you can shed some light , dont both pages still get indexed even if its redirected with a 301? I am sure a rel=canonical will solve the issue !
Best Wishes,
Hampig M
BizDetox
-
Have you set your preferred domain in Google Webmaster Tools?
(Make sure you have verified both versions of your domain)
Configuration > settings > preferred domain > radial for the www version
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
-
We recently updated a large guide that takes the place of the original. The original has some nice organic traffic to it and I don't want to risk losing it. Should I 301 redirect to the new version, or update all the info directly on the original page?
We don't have a lot of content that garners much non-branded organic, so this is something I don't want to risk losing. We do not have a whole lot of external links into the page either.
On-Page Optimization | | AFP_Digital1 -
Why doesn't MailChimp use an SSL certificate on their homepage?
MailChimp, one of the biggest brands in online marketing doesn't use an SSL certificate on their homepage...Is there a simple reason for this? Wouldn't they get an SEO boost from having one?
On-Page Optimization | | WickVideo1 -
Should Title Tags Differ From H1's?
I never thought this was an issue, but now, I'm not so sure. Is it a problem for your title tags to be identical to your H1's? From Moz' OnPage Grader section on "H1's and Title Tags," I thought they were supposed to both match your keyword. Any thoughts? Thanks, Ruben
On-Page Optimization | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Duplicate Content - But it isn't!
Hi All, I have a site that releases alerts for particular problem/events/happenings. Due to legal stuff we keep the majority of the content the same on each of these event pages. The URLs are all different but it keeps coming back as duplicate content. The canonical tag is not right (i dont think for this) egs http://www.holidaytravelwatch.com/alerts/call-to-arms/egypt/coral-sea-waterworld-resort-sharm-el-sheikh-egypt-holiday-complaints-july-2014 http://www.holidaytravelwatch.com/alerts/call-to-arms/egypt/hotel-concorde-el-salam-sharm-el-sheikh-egypt-holiday-complaints-may-2014
On-Page Optimization | | Astute-Media0 -
I think my site's HTML is good but I get 22 Invalid markup erros?
Most are all related to things like facebook like buttons and such. I'm using DOCTYPE 4.01 Traditional but no good. Any ideas? www.jaaron-wood-countertops.com
On-Page Optimization | | JAARON0 -
Rethinking company's monthly content production process.
I'm trying to rethink my company's content production process. I believe that we're stuck using a formula that works but can surely be improved. Our Current Process It essentially boils down to posting a certain number of content pieces per month for each client. After the pages are approved and live, there isn't much thought given to them. What We're Thinking After taking a step back, we realize now that a lot of these clients have sites with a tremendous amount of content that is rarely, if ever, revisited. In hopes of creating higher quality content and avoiding having to write that certain number of pieces per month, we're investigating alternative strategies to ensure each client has fresh content. What We're Looking Into Page Edits/Refreshes - I'm beginning to wonder if we can get similar gains by simply refreshing the content that already exists. We can include additional keywords and improve the content in a fraction of the time that it takes to produce a new piece. We're struggling to come up with a process for refreshing the content, however. Ideally we'd be implementing a process where content is revisited 6-12 months, but that still doesn't take care of the problem of creating too much new content. Simplified Version I believe that my company is creating too much content. Editing/refreshing seems like a better use of resources, but I have no idea how to implement a process and develop procedures. Questions What does your content production process look like? Do you produce a certain number a month, a quarter, as needed, etc? How do you go about refreshing your content?
On-Page Optimization | | SeoWebMechanix0 -
Numbers in URL's - Search friendly or not?
Hi Mozzers, I have a client who has just launched a new website and we are having difficulties in making the URL's search friendly. I wont get into the technical aspects, but I'll explain the potential solutions the developers have given me. current: www.site.com/en/product/browse-by-product/37/22 Where 'en' stands for the English version of the website, 37 is the product category for example 'hard drives', and 22 is the product name or example 'seagate' Option to fix; www.site.com/en/p/product/hard-drives-37/seagate-22 This optional fix reduces the word product down to p, reduces 'browse by product' to 'product' and inserts the category and product names. Note the category identifier '37' has to be included in the URL, and the product identifier '22' also has to be in the URL. Obviously this is not great, but it is required at the moment. Best case scenario would be to have the URL like this... www.site.com/en/hard-drives/seagate So my question is, how far off the best case scenario is the option to fix? Scale of 1 to 10 would be good?
On-Page Optimization | | JoeyDorrington0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0