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
-
Would You Redirect a Page if the Parent Page was Redirected?
Hi everyone! Let's use this as an example URL: https://www.example.com/marvel/avengers/hulk/ We have done a 301 redirect for the "Avengers" page to another page on the site. Sibling pages of the "Hulk" page live off "marvel" now (ex: /marvel/thor/ and /marvel/iron-man/). Is there any benefit in doing a 301 for the "Hulk" page to live at /marvel/hulk/ like it's sibling pages? Is there any harm long-term in leaving the "Hulk" page under a permanently redirected page? Thank you! Matt
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | amag0 -
Http to https Canonical Question
Hello Fellow Moz Friends I have recently went from http to https for the website. Do I keep my canonicals at http or make all https? Will this affect ranking signals? Anything I should be looking out for? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Carwrapsolutions0 -
Interlinking multiple websites
Most websites (for example) Zalando intern link there other CC tld domains to the root. For example: On http://www.zalando.nl/damesschoenen-pumps/ the links in the footer go to the other CC tld's: http://www.zalando.es , zalando.co.uk etc. Does anyone have experience with the fact if you would interlink to the relevant page on the other CC tld;s.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TjeerdvZ
For example: http://www.zalando.nl/damesschoenen-pumps/ links to http://www.zalando.co.uk/womens-shoes-heels/ in stead of linking to the homepage ?
In theory this would give more relevance intern linking. Looking forward to hear if anyone tried or experienced this and what the results where?0 -
Is there anything wrong with this 301 redirect?
I'll keep this one short and sweet 🙂 Many moons ago we used to have several different methods of sorting our products and this change in sort order was achieved by having ?dispmode=list or ?dispmode=grid after the product URL. Best part of a year ago we decided to scrap this feature and 301'd all the ?dispmode URL's back to the base URL. The funny thing is that Google don't seem to have dropped a single one of the old URL's from their index and a search for site:www.refreshcartridges.co.uk dispmode returns almost 8,000 results. This isn't a massive problem but I'd have expected in the past year they'd have picked up on a couple of the 301's and would have started removing the old results. I'd hate to think we were getting any kind of penalisation for duplicate pages. I know the answer to this question is going to be 'just be patient, the old results will disappear' but just to ensure we're not missing anything stupid. I'd really appreciate it if someone could check out www.refreshcartridges.co.uk/brother-c-223.html?dispmode=list to confirm there's nothing more we could be doing to get these old results removed from the index. Many thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate0 -
Backlinking from a Canonical Page to the Non-Canonical Doman - Wrong Signals?
Hi Mozzers, Let's say you have www.mysite.com/page, which is a duplicate of www.yoursite.com/page. www.yousite.com/page has a rel canonical link identifying www.mysite.com/page as the original source. www.mysite.com/page has a followed backlink going towards www.yousite.com/home-page. mysite.com has a DA of 44
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W
yoursite.com has a DA of 33 Google has chosen to index www.yoursite.com/page instead of www.mysite.com/page. Is the followed backlink responsible for the wrong page being indexed? Thanks!0 -
Is Google mad at me for redirecting...?
Hi, I have an e-commerce website that sells unique items (one of a kind). We have hundreds of items and the items are rapidly sold. Up till now I kept the sold items under our "sold items" section but it started to get back at me as we have more "sold" than non sold and we are having duplication problems (the items are quite similar besides to sizes etc.). What should we do? Should we redirect 100 pages each week? Will Google be upset with that? (for driving it crazy) Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0 -
Old Redirecting Website Still Showing In SERPs
I have a client, a plumber, who bought another plumbing company (and that company's domain) at one point. This other company was very old and has a lot of name recognition so they created a dedicated page to this other company within their main website, and redirected the other company's old domain to that page. This has worked fine, in that this page on the main site is now #1 when you search for the other old company's name. But for some reason the old domain comes up #2 (despite the fact that it's redirecting). Now, I could understand if the redirect had only been set up recently, but I'm reasonably sure this happened about a year ago. Could it be due to the fact that there are many sites out there still linking to that old domain? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VTDesignWorks1 -
Global Redirection Rules
SEO Moz Community: After twice changing directory software, I have a ton of 404 errors in Webmaster Tools (over 3,000). I've decided to do 301 redirects but can't manually enter in each 404 URL. How can you redirect pages from the same folder on a mass scale? For example, mysite.com/autos has hundreds of pages associated with it (/autos/ford, toyota etc.) How can you do a 301 that redirects all those pages without manually entering in each URL? Site is built on Wordpress
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JSOC0