Duplicate Content for index.html
-
In the Crawl Diagnostics Summary, it says that I have two pages with duplicate content which are:
I read in a Dream Weaver tutorial that you should name your home page "index.html" and then you can let www.mywebsite.com automatically direct the user to index.html. Is this a bug in SEOMoz's crawler or is it a real problem with my site?
Thank you,
Dan
-
The code should definitely go into the websites root directory's .htaccess, however .htaccess can be weird, a few days ago I ran into a similar issue with a client's website, and I was able to remedy the issue with a variation of the code.
index Redirect RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /([^/]+/)index.(php|html|htm|asp)\ HTTP/ RewriteRule ^(([^/]+/))index.(php|html|htm|asp)$ http://yoursite.com/$1 [R=301,L]
If you give me the URL for the site I will take a look at it and let you know what would be feasible.
-
Hi Daniel, can you share with us the URL of your site? We can take a look at it and give you a more precise answer that way. Thanks!
-
I eventually figured out that your method was a 301 redirect and I definitely broke my site trying to use the code you posted. .. haha. Its ok though. I just removed the code and it went back to normal. At first, I was editing the .htaccess file in the public_html folder which wasnt working. Then I tried the root folder for the site (I created the .htaccess file since it did not exist.) Neither of those worked. (I am using Bluehost so I do not think that I have root access and I am not sure if it is a Linux server or not.)
If there is an easy way to explain what I am doing wrong, please do so. Otherwise, I will use canonical.
Thanks for everything!
-
@Dan
Thanks for your reply. It seems like there are lots of different ways to solve this problem. I just watched this video on Matt Cutt's blog where he discusses his preference for 301 redirects over rel canonical tag.
Where would you say your solution fits in?
sorry about the delay of this response, i didn't realize the that you were asking me a question right away. When placing the code I provided in my previous answer this will cause a 301 perminant redirect to the original URL. That's actually what the
[R=301,L]
portion of the code is stating (R) redirect (301) status is referring to. After reviewing the Matt Cutts video, I realize that I should have asked you if you were operating on a Linux server that you had root access to. We actually utilize both redirects and canonical tags since it was recommended by the on-page optimization reports. Heck Google uses them, I would assume because it's easier for the user to be referred to a single page URL. Obviously though if you don't have server header access, and are not familiar with .htaccess (you can accidentally break your site) then the canonical solution is appropriate
-
Josh,
Thanks for your reply. It seems like there are lots of different ways to solve this problem. I just watched this video on Matt Cutt's blog where he discusses his preference for 301 redirects over rel canonical tag.
Where would you say your solution fits in?
Thanks,
Dan -
use the link rel tag for all my homepages for the http://www.yoursite.com
-
Odd enough I just recently answered this question. The SEOmoz crawler is correct, because without a redirect you will be able to access both versions of the page in your browser.
To resolve this issue simply rewrite the index.html to the root url by placing the following code into your .htaccess file into your root directory.
Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine on
Index Rewrite RewriteRule ^index.(htm|html|php) http://www.yoursite.com/ [R=301,L] RewriteRule ^(.*)/index.(htm|html|php) http://www.yoursite.com/$1/ [R=301,L]
You can also do the same with the index file in any subdirectories that you might create, by simply placing a .htaccess into those sub directories and using variations of the above code. This is how you create nice tight URLs without the duplicate content issue that look like - http://www.semclix.com/design/business/
-
It is a problem which you need to fix. You need to canonicalize your pages.
Those are all various URLs which most likely lead to the same web page. I say "most likely" because these URLs can actually lead to different pages.
You need to tell crawlers and search engines how you organize your site. There are several ways to achieve canonicalization. The method I prefer is to add the following line of code to each page:
The URL provided should be the preferred URL for your page.
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
-
I'm doing a crawl analysis for a website and finding all these duplicate URLs with "null" being added to them and have no clue what could be causing this.
Does anyone know what could be causing this? Our dev team thinks it's caused by mobile pages they created a while ago but it is adding 1000's of additional URLs to the crawl report and being indexed by Google. They don't see it as a priority but I believe these could be very harmful to our site. examples from URL string:
Web Design | | julianne.amann
uruguay-argentina-chilenullnull/days
rainforests-volcanoes-wildlifenullnull/reviews
of-eastern-europenullnullnullnull/hotels0 -
Curious why site isn't ranking, rather seems like being penalized for duplicate content but no issues via Google Webmaster...
So we have a site ThePowerBoard.com and it has some pretty impressive links pointing back to it. It is obviously optimized for the keyword "Powerboard", but in no way is it even in the top 10 pages of Google ranking. If you site:thepowerboard.com the site, and/or Google just the URL thepowerboard.com you will see that it populates in the search results. However if you quote search just the title of the home page, you will see oddly that the domain doesn't show up rather at the bottom of the results you will see where Google places "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 7 already displayed". If you click on the link below that, then the site shows up toward the bottom of those results. Is this the case of duplicate content? Also from the developer that built the site said the following: "The domain name is www.thepowerboard.com and it is on a shared server in a folder named thehoverboard.com. This has caused issues trying to ssh into the server which forces us to ssh into it via it’s ip address rather than by domain name. So I think it may also be causing your search bot indexing problem. Again, I am only speculating at this point. The folder name difference is the only thing different between this site and any other site that we have set up." (Would this be the culprit? Looking for some expert advice as it makes no sense to us why this domain isn't ranking?
Web Design | | izepper0 -
How to avoid duplicate title tags?
I've got roughly 1200 location pages for a travel client. Since the business does the same thing at every location, the title tags and descriptions are almost identical except for the location name. I know Google likes tags and meta descriptions to be unique, but how many different ways can I write the same title in a 55 character limit? For example, here's how the titles look: Things to do in San Jose, CA | Company Name
Web Design | | Masbro
Things to do in Dallas, TX | Company Name
Things to do in Albuquerque, NM | Company Name **My question: Are 1200 title tags structured this way unique enough for Google? ** I have got the same problem with the meta descriptions, but I can vary those a bit more because i have more characters to work with. Thanks for your input,
Dino2 -
Fixing my sites problem with duplicate page content
My site has a problem with duplicate page content. SEO MOZ is telling me 725 pages worth. I have looked a lot into the 301 Re direct and the Rel=canonical Tag and I have a few questions: First of all, I'm not sure which on I should use in this case. I have read that the 301 Redirect is the most popular path to take. If I take this path do I need to go in and change the URL of each of these pages or does it automatically change with in the redirect when I plug in the old URL and the new one? Also, do I need to just go to each page that SEO MOZ is telling me is a duplicate and make a redirect of that page? One thing that I am very confused about is the fact that some of these duplicates listed out are actually different pages on my site. So does this just mean the URL's are too similar to each other, and there fore need the redirect to fix them? Then on the other hand I have a log in page that says it has 50 duplicates. Would this be a case in which I would use the Canonical Tag and would put it into each duplicate so that the SE knew to go to the original file? Sorry for all of the questions in this. Thank you for any responses.
Web Design | | JoshMaxAmps0 -
What site do you admire/like for its SEO - technical, content, whatever - and why?
I am gathering examples of great SEO'd sites and would appreciate your examples. The rationale can be anything - great SEO structure, great linking, solid content - you think stands out. Thank you!
Web Design | | josh-riley0 -
Duplicate Content Problem on Our Site?
Hi, Having read the SEOMOZ guide and already worried about this previously, I have decided to look further into this. Our site is 4-5 years old, poorly built by a rouge firm so we have to stick with what we have for now. Were I think we might be getting punished is duplicate content across various pages. We have a Brands page, link at top of page. Here we are meant to enter each brand we stock and a little write up on that brands. What we then put in these write ups is used on each brands item page when we click a brand name on the left nav bar. Or when we click a Product Type (eg. Footwear) then click on a brand filter on the left. So this in theory is duplicate content. The SEO title and Meta Description for each brand is then used on the Brands Page and also on each page with the Brands Product on. As we have entered this brand info, you will notice that the page www.designerboutique-online.com/all-clothing/armani-jeans/ has the same brand description in the scroll box at the top as the page www.designerboutique-online.com/shirts/armani-jeans/ and all the other product type pages. The same SEO title and same Meta descriptions. Only the products change from each one. This then applies to each brand we have (at least 15) across about 8 pages. All with different URLs but the same text. Not sure how a 301 or rel: canonical would work for this, as each URL needs to point at specific pages (eg. shirts, shorts etc...). Some brands such as Creative Recreation and Cruyff only sell footwear, so technically I think??? We could 301 to the Footwear/ URL rather than having both all-clothing and footwear file paths? This surely must be down to the bad design? Could we be losing valulable rank and juice because of this issue? And how would I go about fixing it? I want a new site, but funds are tight. But if this issue is so big that only a new site would fix it, then maybe the money would need to come forward. What do people make of this? Cheers Will
Web Design | | YNWA0 -
Real Estate and Duplicate Content
Currently we use an MLS which is an iFrame of property listings. We plan to pay an extra fee and have the crawlable version. But one problem is that many real estate firms have access to the same data, which makes our content duplicate of theirs. Is there any way around this ? Thanks
Web Design | | SGMan0 -
Are HTML sitemaps still in use today?
I'm trying to help a client understand the importance of having a well-organized HTML site map as a method of helping usability. As part of this process, I spent some time searching for good examples of well-organized HTML site maps, and found that many sites don't offer one (including SEOmoz). I'm wondering if webmasters and/or SEOers think they aren't valuable any longer?
Web Design | | EricVallee340