Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Redirecting Canonical 301s and Magento Website
-
I have an issue with a client's website where it has 3700+ pages, but roughly half of them are duplicates. Thankfully, the only difference between the original and the duplictes is the "?print" at the end of each URL (I suppose this is Magento's way of making a printable page version of the same page. I don't know, I didn't build it.)
My questions is, how can I get all the pages like this
http://www.mycompany.com/blah.html?print
to redirect to pages like this...
http://www.mycompany.com/blah.html
Also, do they NEED to be Canonical, or will a 301 redirect be sufficient.
Also, after having done this, if anybody knows, is there a way I can turn that feature off in Magento, because we're expanding our product line, and I don't want to have to keep chasing after these "?print" pages after the fact.
-
Late to this game, but just in case you're still waiting on your dev...
Magento has an automated add-on system called Magento Connect, and you can access it from your admin (unless the original installer disabled it on your account). You can just use that to install Yoast's plugin. Check out http://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/canonical-url-for-magento.html
Aside from that, if you are using something after 1.4, you should have canonical built into your store (it's in the config section).
If you're not using something after 1.4, consider upgrading. It's not painless, but anything prior to 1.4.1 is pretty rough to use. I'm not surprised you've got bugs and general sadness.
-
Hehe, hey now, not all us developers are lazy
You know your system better than any of us do. My 1. and 2. are just the best-case order in which to get things done. Do what works for you and your site.
-
like I said, I will email your solution concerning the plugin to my web admin guy, but the reason why I'm kind of reticent to do that is it's more a matter of bureacracy (to be sensitive to his time constraints) rather than technical or lack of know-how. I want to get it done right, but I also want to get it done in a timely manner. But I will forward this to him. Thanks you sir.
-
I don't understand why you don't just use the rel="canonical" plugin I mentioned above... ?
-
thank you sir....I'll try to avoid the htaccess route then.
-
Yeah I guess this is the only way to go. Now I just got to get the webmaster to get around to it. (sigh)...
-
Yes to your first questions. Here's the process for each (as I see it):
1. Fix/remove the ability for system to generate ?print URL's and implement canonical tags; open beer and wait 'til search engines sort things out. Nothing more you can do here.
2. No fix to system so we still have ?print URL's. In this case, setup the 301's in your .htaccess file; however, as long as the system is still generating these ?print URLs, you will have to keep the redirects in the .htaccess in tact, permanently.
Untested:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^([^/]*).html?print$ /$1.html [L,NC,R=301]
-
I guess my question now is, just doing the htaccess route is a bad idea? in both 301s AND canonicals or just 301s? I guess I'm not looking for easy, but economical. Thanks for your responses.
-
I agree with THB on this, use rel="canonical" you simply want to say to the search engines "Hey this is the preferred URL for my content".
301's are for saying "Hey this page has permanently moved to a new page/site"
I would use the rel="canonical" plugin I posted for you above, it will automatically add the canonical tag for you, job done.
-
Yeah, I know, right. The problem is, I found this out only AFTER I bought the PRO version and mapped out the entirety of the site. Some of those ?print URLs are now indexed in the SEs. So I agree with nipping this problem in the bud (or the root, whichever one prefers), but I still need to know how to do it via the htaccess. In other words, I have to go backwards and take care of the rankings, THEN figure out how to turn it off (and I can go to the Magento forums for that).
-
So, assuming this works, can I eventually remove the ".html?print" versions of the pages after the SEs have changed the URLs in their indices?
also, I'm not getting the impression it's going to save me time on specifying different pages (it may save time, I'm not sure), but in the chance it doesn't or the plugin fails to do as advertised, what is the htaccess option for this? Because at least, in this case, I can see the immediacy in it AND you can do canonical rewrites FROM the htaccess.
My situation is, I'm not THAT advanced in wildcards to make this happen (otherwise, I'd do it myself via just trial and error until it works) AND I myself don't have access to the site (the webmaster does, whose part time) and I have a choice between "Hey, here's several (or one line) of code to put into htaccess to resolve this problem" OR "can you go through and implement this plug to do the Canonical redirects on every page, oh and by the way, please back up first."
So it's not merely JUST a technical problem or a know-how problem, it's also a bureaucratic problem that can mean the difference between getting it done in a few minutes, and it could take two weeks to make happen depending on this person's perception.
-
Just to clarify. If there is in fact no difference between the pages (as you originally stated), then please just use the canonical tag. As much as you might want to setup 301 redirects, they would not be the way to go in this case. Trust me.
Otherwise, here is what I would do, honestly: find out why the ?print is causing information to be displayed improperly in some cases. If it's accessing the same db tables using the same queries, then that shouldn't be happening. I'd fix that, and implement the canonical tags, and wait it out. That would be the easiest approach and most beneficial with the least impact to your site and any rankings.
If this is something your not capable of fixing (not sure if you're proficient with coding, etc), then you can setup 301's as a 'hack', but they should not be left in permanently as the process in which I stated just above is the best way to resolve the issue.
In order to assist you with any .htaccess markup, you'll need to provide some examples of your URL's, and whether they have any common identifiers.
-
OK - I was basing my answers on what you said, "the only difference between the original and the duplictes is the "?print" at the end of each URL"
If there is in fact different content on each page, and the ?print page is the one with the errors, then you should remove the ability for ?print pages to even be generated in the first place instead of having them constantly redirecting user/bots. Forever 301 re-directions can hurt you down the road.
Once you've removed the ability for users/bots to find and access the ?print pages, then setup the 301's and insert the canonical tags.
-
It looks like this plugin will add the rel="canonical" tag for you automatically: http://yoast.com/tools/magento/canonical/
View the source code after you have installed it to confirm it's working as expected.
-
I was answering this Kjay's response while this one was coming down the pipeline. I get you on the fact if they were TRULY identical, but the reason I wanted to do the 301s is because more than likely, the Magento engine is faulty, and I've found situaitons where the prices are different between the two versions, or the images and text haven't been updated, etc. etc., hence, the need for a 301
-
I guess my question is, if I use JUST the canonical, then the SEs will get around to changing the address, but will still go to the "?print" pages until that time.
Also, the Magento help aide on that said I had to do it with EACH individual page. It's going to be especially time-consuming to have to go back out into the admin, go back into the admin, and check to see EVERY time the page that I'm canonizing is the right html version. I think this is where accessing the htaccess will save me a bunch of time (I still have to change the title tags on the remaining original 1500 pages, as well as find out from the Magento site, to access the H1 tags in the templates).
If I use the basic 301 redirect, I get the benefit of the immediate redirect, but I fail to see the downside of having to "endure" the 301 redirect other than additional rules for the browser to access the server. I eventually want to get RID of these "?print" pages because I'm getting the feeling that prices won't update as reliably on the ".html?print" version of the pages, update images (which we HAVE had trouble with in the past) etc. etc. And there's also the possibility that people may still access those ?print pages even if I did just do a canonical. It's just better to admin and SEO 1500+ pages as opposed to 1500+ pages and their duplicates.
I guess, what I'm looking for is, more than likely, the syntax command that's going to include a wildcard function to accomodate everything between "http://www.mycompany.com/" and ".html?print" or ".html". What would that look like?
-
Agreed
-
Ya, this is what I was talking about. Just a standard canonical html tag inserted into the framework.
That will clear everything up for you (might take a wee bit, but Google will recognize it right away).
No need for .htaccess whatsoever since the content is identical. If the content were different, ie. the ?print page showed a completely different style format, then sure, setup some 301's to get the user's to the right page. But not needed for your situation.
-
I would just add:
rel="canonical" href="http://www.mycompany.com/blah.html" />
No need to add 301's.
This might be useful it's Magento specific: http://www.magentocommerce.com/wiki/adding_canonical_url_to_cms_pages
-
Okay, so if I were in the htaccess file, what would it look like?
would it be a Query string rewrite?
RewriteEngine On
_ RewriteBase /_
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^(*)$
RewriteRule ^()html?print$ http://www.mycompany.com/()html$ [R=301]
or just a straight one line redirect
Redirect 301 /()html?print http://www.mycompany.com/().html
-
Canonical will suffice as it is basically a 301 anyways. Cleaner too as there is no actual redirect for the user, or bot, to endure.
You can also set it up in Google Webmaster Tools under 'Site Configuration > URL Parameters' to ignore that parameter; however, using the canonical tag will more than suffice in this case.
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
-
Hreflang and canonical tag for new country specific website - different base domain
I have a little different situation compared to most other questions which asks for hreflang and canonical tags for country specific version of websites. This is an SEO related question and I was hoping to get some insight on your recommendations. We have an existing Australian website - say - ausnight.com.au now we want to launch a UK version of this website - the domain is - uknight.co.uk please note, we are not only changing from .com.au to .co.uk.... but the base domain name as well changed - from ausnight to uknight as you can understand, the audience for both websites is different. Both websites has most pages same with same contents.... the questions I have is - Should we put canonical tag on the new website pages? If we don't put canon tag on new website pages, what is the impact on the SEO ranking of current website? I believe we need to put hreflang tag on both websites to tell google that we have another language version (en-au vs en-gb) of the same page. Is this correct?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TinoSharp0 -
Should I apply Canonical Links from my Landing Pages to Core Website Pages?
I am working on an SEO project for the website: https://wave.com.au/ There are some core website pages, which we want to target for organic traffic, like this one: https://wave.com.au/doctors/medical-specialties/anaesthetist-jobs/ Then we have basically have another version that is set up as a landing page and used for CPC campaigns. https://wave.com.au/anaesthetists/ Essentially, my question is should I apply canonical links from the landing page versions to the core website pages (especially if I know they are only utilising them for CPC campaigns) so as to push link equity/juice across? Here is the GA data from January 1 - April 30, 2019 (Behavior > Site Content > All Pages😞
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Wavelength_International0 -
Rel=canonical and internal links
Hi Mozzers, I was musing about rel=canonical this morning and it occurred to me that I didnt have a good answer to the following question: How does applying a rel=canonical on page A referencing page B as the canonical version affect the treatment of the links on page A? I am thinking of whether those links would get counted twice, or in the case of ver-near-duplicates which may have an extra sentence which includes an extra link, whther that extra link would count towards the internal link graph or not. I suspect that google would basically ignore all the content on page A and only look to page B taking into account only page Bs links. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unirmk0 -
Should I Keep adding 301s or use a noindex,follow/canonical or a 404 in this situation?
Hi Mozzers, I feel I am facing a double edge sword situation. I am in the process of migrating 4 domains into one. I am in the process of creating URL redirect mapping The pages I am having the most issues are the event pages that are past due but carry some value as they generally have one external followed link. www.example.com/event-2008 301 redirect to www.newdomain.com/event-2016 www.example.com/event-2007 301 redirect to www.newdomain.com/event-2016 www.example.com/event-2006 301 redirect to www.newdomain.com/event-2016 Again these old events aren't necessarily important in terms of link equity but do carry some and at the same time keep adding multiple 301s pointing to the same page may not be a good ideas as it will increase the page speed load time which will affect the new site's performance. If i add a 404 I will lose the bit of equity in those. No index,follow may work since it won't index the old domain nor the page itself but still not 100% sure about it. I am not sure how a canonical would work since it would keep the old domain live. At this point I am not sure which direction I should follow? Thanks for your answers!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
301s being indexed
A client website was moved about six months ago to a new domain. At the time of the move, 301 redirects were setup from the pages on the old domain to point to the same page on the new domain. New pages were setup on the old domain for a different purpose. Now almost six months later when I do a query in google on the old domain like site:example.com 80% of the pages returned are 301 redirects to the new domain. I would have expected this to go away by now. I tried removing these URLs in webmaster tools but the removal requests expire and the URLs come back. Is this something we should be concerned with?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Should I redirect my xml sitemap?
Hi Mozzers, We have recently rebranded with a new company name, and of course this necessitated us to relaunch our entire website onto a new domain. I watched the Moz video on how they changed domain, copying what they did pretty much to the letter. (Thank you, Moz for sharing this with the community!) It has gone incredibly smoothly. I told all my bosses that we may see a 40% reduction in traffic / conversions in the short term. In the event (and its still very early days) we have in fact seen a 15% increase in traffic and our new website is converting better than before so an all-round success! I was just wondering if you thought I should redirect my XML sitemap as well? So far I haven't, but despite us doing the change of address thing in webmaster tools, I can see Google processed the old sitemap xml after we did the change of address etc. What do you think? I know we've been very lucky with the outcome of this rebrand but I don't want to rest on my laurels or get tripped up later down the line. Thanks everyone! Amelia
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommT0 -
Too many 301 redirects?
Hey, My company currently has one chief website with about 500-600 other domains that all feature the same material as the chief website. These domains have been around for about 5 years and have actually picked up some link traffic. I have all of these identical web-pages utilizing rel=canonical but I was wondering if I would be better served, from SEO purposes, to 301 redirect all of these sites to their respective pages on our chief website? If I add 500 301 redirects, will the major search engines consider this to be black-hat link-building even though the sites are related and technically already feature the same content? For an example, the chief website is www.1099pro.com and I would 301 redirect the below sites to the chief site: 1099softwarepro.com 1099softwarepro.info 1099softwarepro.net 1099softwarepro.biz 1099softwareprofessionals.com 1099softwareprofessionals.info ...you get the point
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
Wildcard Redirects & Canonical Tags
I have an interesting situation. Current URLs Example1: www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NakulGoyal
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234-1.html
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234-1-1.html Canonical on All Above URLs:
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234.html New URL:
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-4567.html Current URLs Example2: www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10.html
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10-1.html
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10-1-1.html Canonical on All Above URLs:
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10.html New URL:
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-6789.html Current URLs Example3: www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10+5.html
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10+5-1.html
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10+5-1-1.html Canonical on All Above URLs:
www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10+5.html New URL:
www.domain.com/american-red-widgets-cid-6789+5.html I want to make sure all variations of the above URL redirect to the new URLs. However, as you see in Example 3, we are dealing with variables that are passed on. (+5 in this case). Question 1: What wildcard 301 redirect / regular expression can I use to tackle these ? Question 2: If we redirect www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-1234+10+5.html to www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-6789+5.html and www.domain.com/red-widgets-cid-6789+5.html contains the canonical tag www.domain.com/american-red-widgets-cid-6789+5.html, any concerns or red flags here ?0