Canonicalization issue? - URLs with and without trailing slashes showing up as unique
-
For some reason, our urls are set to change from “www.apprenda.com/ANYTHING" to “apprenda.com/ANYTHING”
These register as different pages though? We have rankings in SEOMoz Pro for terms where our homepage shows up 6th on google, but SEOMoz says it's not on the first page because it's checking against apprenda.com and not www.apprenda.com
Also, it seems like for some reason pages with trailing slashes also register differently than those without. Should we be doing something for that? Something to make sure all pages get rewritten to having the trailing slash or not?
For instance, this url: http://apprenda.com/saasgrid/features/multi-tenancy/ and this url” http://apprenda.com/saasgrid/features/multi-tenancy are really the same page. Yet in our analytics, they register as different pages with their own stats, etc.
What should we do in our particular case, and how can we get this fixed?
I really appreciate the help, and thanks in advance!
- Jesse
-
Here's a good post (here at SEOmoz) about the rel=canonical tag: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not
Here is a good resource for 301 redirects in other languages: http://www.webconfs.com/how-to-redirect-a-webpage.php
I don't have much experience with .NET but it looks like there are two ways to accomplish it. 1) Make changes to IIS to create the permanent redirect, 2) create server side code (maybe you have to check what URL is being requested and redirect them to the correct format?). You should be able to use REGEX like is displayed in my original post to accomplish this in .NET.
I would say the change directly in IIS, if you have access, is the way to go.
Jared
-
Awesome, thanks Jared! Our site is .NET based, but I believe their is a standard "index.aspx". Would this still apply?
Also, you mentioned that this, AS WELL AS utilizing canonical tags should take care of this. How should we go about utilizing canonical tags for our site?
Thanks again!
- Jesse
-
You should utilize htaccess 301 permanent redirects to force trailing slashes and www. to your URLs (or vice versa). This way you will let Google and other search engines know the correct way to be displaying your URLs. Anything pointing to your domain that doesn't fit that will be redirected to the proper format. This, as well as utilizing canonical tags, should take care of your duplicate content issue.
I'm assuming you have an index.php for your website but modify this and test as needed.
Externally redirect to add missing trailing slash to URLs with no filetype
RewriteCond $1 !(.[a-z0-9]{1,5}|/)$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.mywebsite.com/$1/ [R=301,L]Externally redirect non-blank non-canonical hostname request to canonical hostname
(if not already done by the above rule)
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^(www.mysite.com)?$
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.mysite.com/$1 [R=301,L]Rewrite all requests which do not resolve to existing files to the CMS script, except
for image, css, and JS file requests, none of which need to be handled by the CMS,
and requests for index.php itself (to avoid a wasteful second-pass exists check).
RewriteCond $1 !(^index.php|.(gif|jpe?g|png|css|js))$
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /index.php/$1 [L]Make sure you test this out before going live but it should work for what you need.
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
-
In Search Console, why is the XML sitemap "issue" count 5x higher than the URL submission count?
Google Search Console is telling us that there are 5,193 sitemap "issues" - URLs that are present on the XML sitemap that are blocked by robots.txt However, there are only 1,222 total URLs submitted on the XML sitemap. I only found 83 instances of URLs that fit their example description. Why is the number of "issues" so high? Does it compound over time as Google re-crawls the sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FPD_NYC0 -
Issues with Sitelinks
Hey Everyone, I found a couple threads where this was asked, but unfortunately I haven't seen any responses that explain it yet. My issue is with the sitelinks Google is choosing for a section of my website; they're using wrong/lowercase anchor text for a couple of the page titles that isn't anywhere on the page or in the backend that I can find (see screenshot). Any thoughts/reasons as to why they'd be using the lowercase text there? Thanks in advance! David 9r9Pz4w
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davidkaralisjr0 -
SEO issues? New functionality added to website and now hash (in URL) - fragments
Hi All! We have new nice functionality on website, but now i doubt if we will have SEO issues. Duplicate content and if google is able to spider our website. See: http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-nero.html#608=1370
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RetailClicks
With the new functionality we can switch between colors of the models (black / white / red / yellow).
When you switch with Ajax the content of other models is fetched without refreshing the page. (so the url initial part of url stays the same (for initial model) only part behind # changes. The other models are also accessible by there own url, like the red one: http://www.allesvoorbbq.nl/boretti-da-vinci-rosso.html#608=1372 So far so good. But now the questions: 1. We use to have url like /boretti-da-vinci-nero.html - also our canonical is that way But now if we access that url our system is adding automatically the #123-123 to the url to indicate which model(color) is shown. Is this hurting SEO or confusing google? Because it seems that the clean url is not accessible anymore? (it adds now #123-123) 2. Should we add some tags around the different types (colors) to prevent google from indexing that part of website? Every info would be very helpfull! We do not want to lose our nice rankings thanks to MOZ! Thanks all!
Jeroen0 -
Image URL Change Catastrophe
We have a site with over 3mm pages indexed, and an XML sitemap with over 12mm images (312k indexed at peak). Last week our traffic dropped off a cliff. The only major change we made to the site in that time period was adding a DNS record for all of our images that moved them from a SoftLayer Object Storage domain to a subdomain of our site. The old URLs still work, but we changed all the links from across our site to the new subdomain. The big mistake we made was that we didn't update our XML sitemap to the new URLs until almost a week after the switch (totally forgot that they were served from a process with a different config file). We believe this was the cause of the issue because: The pages that dropped in traffic were the ones where the images moved, while other pages stayed more or less the same. We have some sections of our property where the images are, and have always been, hosted by Amazon and their rankings didn't crater. Same with pages that do not have images in the XML sitemap (like list pages). There wasn't a change in geographic breakdown of our traffic, which we looked at because the timing was around the same time as Pigeon. There were no warnings or messages in Webmaster Tools, to indicate a manual action around something unrelated. The number of images indexed in our sitemap according Webmaster Tools dropped from 312k to 10k over the past week. The gap between the change and the drop was 5 days. It takes Google >10 to crawl our entire site, so the timing seems plausible. Of course, it could be something totally unrelated and just coincidence, but we can't come up with any other plausible theory that makes sense given the timing and pages affected. The XML sitemap was updated last Thursday, and we resubmitted it to Google, but still no real change. Anyone had a similar experience? Any way to expedite the climb back to normal traffic levels? Screen%20Shot%202014-07-29%20at%203.38.34%20PM.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wantering0 -
Good DA without PA, why?
Hello friends, I have a problem with my website... I am building my site in 2 parts, the blog part is ready and there is a link to the blog part on the index of my web.. but I do not know why the blog part have 0 PA... According with OSE, my index have good PA and DA,,, but when I visit my home blog section, I can not see any PA... someone coud give me an idea what is wrong? my website with PA and DA is www.garotabella.com.ec and the blog without any PA is www.garotabella.com.ec/blog
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lans27870 -
Google indexing issue?
Hey Guys, After a lot of hard work, we finally fixed the problem on our site that didn't seem to show Meta Descriptions in Google, as well as "noindex, follow" on tags. Here's my question: In our source code, I am seeing both Meta descriptions on pages, and posts, as well as noindex, follow on tag pages, however, they are still showing the old results and tags are also still showing in Google search after about 36 hours. Is it just a matter of time now or is something else wrong?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ttb0 -
Could this URL issue be affecting our rankings?
Hi everyone, I have been building links to a site for a while now and we're struggling to get page 1 results for their desired keywords. We're wondering if a web development / URL structure issue could be to blame in what's holding it back. The way the site's been built means that there's a 'false' 1st-level in the URL structure. We're building deeplinks to the following page: www.example.com/blue-widgets/blue-widget-overview However, if you chop off the 2nd-level, you're not given a category page, it's a 404: www.example.com/blue-widgets/ - [Brings up a 404] I'm assuming the web developer built the site and URL structure this way just for the purposes of getting additional keywords in the URL. What's worse is that there is very little consistency across other products/services. Other pages/URLs include: www.example.com/green-widgets/widgets-in-green www.example.com/red-widgets/red-widget-intro-page www.example.com/yellow-widgets/yellow-widgets I'm wondering if Google is aware of these 'false' pages* and if so, if we should advise the client to change the URLs and therefore the URL structure of the website. This is bearing in mind that these pages haven't been linked to (because they don't exist) and therefore aren't being indexed by Google. I'm just wondering if Google can determine good/bad URL etiquette based on other parts of the URL, i.e. the fact that that middle bit doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, my colleague Steve asked this question on a blog post that Dr. Pete had written. Here's a link to Steve's comment - there are 2 replies below, one of which argues that this has no implication whatsoever. However, 5 months on, it's still an issue for us so it has me wondering... Many thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gmorgan0 -
Url with hypen or.co?
Given a choice, for your #1 keyword, would you pick a .com with one or two hypens? (chicago-real-estate.com) or a .co with the full name as the url (chicagorealestate.co)? Is there an accepted best practice regarding hypenated urls and/or decent results regarding the effectiveness of the.co? Thank you in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | joechicago0