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
-
Hi Keri
Thanks for your input. As far as I’m aware DNN can't handle URLs without the file extensions, always seemed a bit behind when it came to SEO and is definitely not the most SEO friendly CMS out there.
Would like to get rid of the file extenstion as it just seems a bit more use friendly from the start and as you righly said this will shorten the url a bit as well.
Thanks again,
-
I'd see if there was a good way to get rid of the aspx so if you ever change technologies, you can keep those same URLs and minimize future redirects (and it makes your URLs a little bit shorter). I don't know if you can get rid of it or not, not that far into my own DNN site upgrade (upgrading a forum site and moving to friendly URLs, new version of DNN and active forums, and all kinds of fun stuff).
-
I'm glad I could help Peter - thanks for accepting my answer.
-
Hi Sebastian
Thank you very much for such a quick response,
I think you have just confirmed my "gut" feeling. The pages were already doing well for a "newish" site with some big initial jumps up the rankings.
Not going to try and fix something that is not broken.
Really appreciate your advice, really think that this community is the best EVER.
Thank you
Peter
-
Hi Peter,
I don't think this would make a massive difference, but if you can separate words by hyphens then it is definitely a good idea, however bear in mind that most of the domains have their keywords joined together and they are still recognised by search engines therefore if you can - do - if it's too much of a hassle - leave it the way it is.
You will find that many people have their own opinion about it, but form my personal experience the url will be as good as its content. I have one website, which uses underscores - these are not seen as word separators and the site ranks very well due to its content. I have another without rewriting - simply using url parameters as ?page=1 - and it's also ranked high.
In short - it's good to have hyphens, but I wouldn't expect it to make a significant difference.
-
Is there a way for you to use a programmatic change instead of a 301 redirect ? Since these are brand new URLs, it would make sense to investigate if that is doable. I am sure there's a way out there. All the current logic is doing is getting rid of the space, however it should be replaced with a hyphen. The data is there, it's just a matter of replacing it with a separator.
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
-
Rel=canonical or 301 to pass on page authority/juice
I have a large body of product support documentation and there are similar pages for each of versions of the product, with minor changes as the product changes. The two oldest versions of this documentation get the best ranking and are powering Google snippets--however, this content is out of date. The team responsible for the support documentation wants current pages to rank higher. I suggested 301 redirects but they want to maintain the old page content for clients still using the older version of the product. Is there a way to move a page's power to a more updated version of the page, but without wiping out the old content? Considering recommending canonical tags, but I'm not sure this will get me all the way there either as there are some differences between pages, especially as the product has changed over time. Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | rachelholdgrafer0 -
301 Redirecting http to https
In the Moz Site Crawl issue, I was seeing an error that said we were temporarily redirecting our homepage to https URLs. So I changed the code in htaccess to make it 301 redirect but I'm still getting the same error. I implemented it last week and we just had a new crawl yesterday. Here is the new code: RewriteEngine on
Technical SEO | | Heydarian
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^heritagelawmarketing.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.heritagelawmarketing.com/$1 [L,R=301,NC] Does anyone know why I'm still getting 302 redirects? Thanks0 -
Virtual inlcude v.s. Redirect 301
Hi there, I manage a website which use a lot virtual includes ( SSI) because it caused a lot of duplicate content i introduced the Canonical url tag. But i still see bad rankings on some pages who are the leading of the virtual includes. Now i'am wondering is it better to remove all the virtual include pages ( url's) and make a redirect 301 of it. Does anybody know that is better for ranking the head page?
Technical SEO | | JoostBruining0 -
How to verify a page-by-page level 301 redirect was done correctly?
Hello, I told some tech guys to do a page-by-page relevant 301 redirect (as talked about in Matt Cutts video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lVPrYoBkA) when a company wanted to move to a new domain when their site was getting redesigned. I found out they did a 302 redirect on accident and had to fix that, so now I don't trust they did the page-by-page relevant redirect. I have a feeling they just redirected all of the pages on the old domain to the homepage of the new domain. How could I confirm this suspicion? I run the old domain through screaming frog and it only shows 1 URL - the homepage. Does that mean they took all of the pages on the old domain offline? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | EvolveCreative0 -
Where is the 301 redirect?
Hi, in the last week I take an issue for 301 permanent redirect for a subfolder in the main website! In that folder i have a index.php file for a google map fullscreen edition and the only link who connects the wordpress website with the subfolder is only a direct link! Is that an error of seomoz app or something else? Thanks 1.jpg
Technical SEO | | petrospan0 -
Setting up a 301 redirect from expired webpages
Hi Guys, We have recently created a new website for one of our clients and replaced their old website on the same domain. One problem that we are having is that all of the old pages are indexed within Google (1000s) and are just getting sent to our custom 404 page. We are finding that there is an large bounce rate from this and also, I am worried from an SEO point of view that the site could lose rank positioning through the number of crawl errors that Google is getting. Want I want is to set up a 301 redirect from these pages to go to the 'our brands' page. The reason for this is that the majority of the old URLs linked to individual product pages, and one thing to note is that they are all .asp pages. Is there a way of setting up a rule in the htaccess file (or another way) to say that all webpages that end with the suffix of .asp will be 301 redirected to the our brands' page? (there is no .asp pages on the new site as it is all done in php). If so, I would love it if someone could post the code snippet. Thanks in advance guys and if you have any other ideas then be my guest to suggest 🙂 Matt.
Technical SEO | | MatthewBarby0 -
Do search engines treat 307 redirects differently from 302 redirects?
We will need to send our users to an alternate version of our homepage for a few hours for a certain event. The SEO task at hand is to minimize the chance of the special homepage getting crawled and cached in the search engines in place of our normal homepage. (This has happened in the past so the concern is not imaginary.) Among other options, 302 and 307 redirects are being discussed. IE, redirecting www.domain.com to www.domain.com/specialpage. Having used 302s and 301s in the past, I am well aware of how search engines treat them. A 302 effectively says "Hey, Google! Please get rid of the old content on www.domain.com and replace it with the content on /specialpage!" Which is exactly what we don't want. My question is: do the search engines handle 307s any differently? I am hearing that the 307 does NOT result in the content of the second page being cached with the first URL. But I don't see that in the definition below (from w3.org). Then again, why differentiate it from the 302? 307 Temporary Redirect The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field. The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on the new URI. If the 307 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.
Technical SEO | | CarsProduction0