Do I need both canonical meta tags AND 301 redirects?
-
I implemented a 301 redirect set to the "www" version in the .htaccess (apache server) file and my logs are DOWN 30-40%! I have to be doing something wrong!
AddType application/x-httpd-php .html .htm
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^luckygemstones.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L]RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.htm
RewriteRule ^(.)index.htm$ http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L]IndexIgnore *
ErrorDocument 404 http://www.luckygemstones.com/page-not-found.htm
ErrorDocument 500 http://www.luckygemstones.com/internal-serv-error.htm
ErrorDocument 403 http://www.luckygemstones.com/forbidden-request.htm
ErrorDocument 401 http://www.luckygemstones.com/not-authorized.htmI've also started adding canoncial META's to EACH page:
I'm using HMTL 4.0 loose still--1000's of pages--painful to convert to HTML5 so I left the / off the tag so it would validate.
Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks, Kathleen
-
I wouldn't use both 301s and rel=canonicals for the same purpose. It's fine to have 301s to redirect non-www URLs, and then canonicals for other problems, but I wouldn't double them up for the same issue. The 301s are the proper solution here.
Your 301s don't seem to be triggering. Did you remove this code? Unfortunately, diagnosing someone's rewrites in .htaccess is incredibly difficult without direct access.
How does Google crawl your site? It looks like all of the products are only available by submitting a form (pulldowns). Google can't take that action, which could be causing major problems with your PageRank flow internally. You need paths that Google can use to reach the actual products. Honestly, form selects menus aren't typically a good solution for users, either.
-
Here's the entire contents of my .htaccess file:
AddType application/x-httpd-php .html .htm
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^luckygemstones.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L]RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^.*/index.htm
RewriteRule ^(.*)index.htm$ http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L]**IndexIgnore ***
ErrorDocument 404 http://www.luckygemstones.com/page-not-found.htm
ErrorDocument 500 http://www.luckygemstones.com/internal-serv-error.htm
ErrorDocument 403 http://www.luckygemstones.com/forbidden-request.htm
ErrorDocument 401 http://www.luckygemstones.com/not-authorized.htmFrankly, I'm not sure what all the flags on the Rewrite lines mean. I know when I updated the index.htm code I lost serious traffic--but without it I seem to have dup content issues. I would just LOVE to be done w/this once and for all--to know it's right would be huge!
Here's the canonical tag in the index.htm file:
Is anything amiss? I will say I had no dup content issues in this week's seomoz run but the loss of traffic means google isn't liking something...
Thanks for your help, Kathleen
-
Using the 301 redirect is the right and necessary thing to do, even if you are using canonical tags, Kathleen. They serve somewhat the same purpose on the home page, but the 301 is vastly more powerful to communicate to the search engines that the www version is your primary page.
You've got a bit of a problem with the canonical tag as you've listed ti though.
By doing the redirect, the canonical version of your home page is now www.luckygemstones.com But your canonical tag is declaring www.luckygemstones.com/index.htm which directly contradicts what you set above. For your home page, it should be
In addition, http://www.luckygemstones.com/index.htm should also be 301-redirecting to http://www.luckygemstones.com (another example of a different URL that applies to the same page). The htaccess you list has that redirect in place, but it doesn't seem to be working on the site - is that htaccess actually live as is?
Paul
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
-
Is 301 redirect the only way when using Vanity URLs?
We have been using vanity urls for some of our pages. Mostly the pages that have a vanity URL have a long URL length. But now the problem is, the vanity URL is getting displayed on the search engine when the particular keyword related to the page is entered. I checked the google search console, the vanity URL is indexed and the original URL remains unindexed. What should I do? Is adding 301 redirect to the vanity URLs are solution? Since some of vanity URLs are not redirecting to the original. Some of the original pages are not getting traffic. Also, can using canonical tag help?
Technical SEO | | tejasbansode0 -
301 Redirect non existant pages
Hi I have 100's of URL's appearing in Search Console for example: ?p=1_1 These go to on to 5_200 etc.. I have tried to do htaccess and the mod rewrite is on as I can redirect directories to the root i.e RewriteRule ^web_example(.*)$ /$1 [R=301,N,L] However I have tried all kinds of variations to redirect ?p= and either it doesn't work at all or it crashes the website. Can anyone point me in the right direction to fix this.
Technical SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0 -
To 301 or not to 301?
I have a client that is having a new site built. Their old site (WP) does not use the trailing / at the end of urls. The new site is using most of the same url names but IS using the /. For instance, the old site would be www.example.com/products and the new site, also WP, will be www.example.com/products/. WordPress will resolve either way, but my question is whether or not to go in and redirect each matching non / page to the new url that has the /. I don't want to leave any link juice on the table but if I can keep the juice without doing a few hundred 301s that certainly wouldn't suck. Any thoughts? Sleepless in KVegas
Technical SEO | | seorocket0 -
How do find where a 301 redirect is located
My report says I have http://www.30minuteseder.com/Passover.blog redirected to http://30minuteseder.com/Passover.blog. It is correct, but I can't find where the 301 redirect is located. I looked in my .htaccess file in the root and it's not there. How do I find it so I can change it?
Technical SEO | | Sederman0 -
Two different canonical tags on one page
Due to an error, some of my pages now have two canonical tags on them. One is correct and the other goes to a nonsense URL (404 page). I know I should ideally remove the incorrect ones, but it's a big manual job. Are they doing any harm? Can I just leave them there and let Google figure it out? The correct ones are higher up in the code. Will this make a difference? Any help appreciated.
Technical SEO | | ShearingsGroup0 -
Rel=cannonical + 301 redirect
Hi All I am currently working on a DotNetNuke site. I have enabled friendly URL's which have changed the url structure from the default setting of TabId=x to whatever the page name is set as. I will use the following page as an example - www.notarealdomain./graphicdesign.aspx Now I would like to know if it would be worth my time to change this to "/graphic-design.aspx through the use of a 301 redirect and/or a rel=can. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | masterpete0 -
Rel - canonical vs 301 redirect
I have multiple product pages on my site - what is better for rankings in your experiance? If I 301 the pages to 1 correct version of the product page - or if I rel caanonical to the one correct page?
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820610 -
Rel-canonical tag
Hi, I'm having some confusion with the rel-canonical tag. A few months ago we implemented the rel-canonical tag because we had many errors specifically duplicate page content come upon the SEOmoz web app (mostly because we use tracking code). I had asked what to do about this and was advised by the SEOmoz web app to implement the rel-canonical tag. However, when I'm working on the Keyword Optimizer Tool, it always checks off that I'm using the rel-canonical tag improperly, and then when I go into our sites' CMS for that page and uncheck "Use Canonical URL", the keyword optimizer tool up's my grade for that correction/that I've made an improvement. So my question is if the page I'm working on is the one I want search engines to find, should I not be using the Canonical URL tag? Should the Canonical URL tag only be used on URL's with the tracking code?
Technical SEO | | aircyclemegan0