Don't understand this ... :-(
-
Hello,
I'm going nuts as I don't understand what's going on with this domain of a client.
We have this classical htaccess redirect
from http://domain.com to http://www.domain.com
But I'm getting Page Authority for both domains, and the non-www, which shouldn't be crawled, is gettting higher PA ..
http://www.myanamar.rundreisen.de - PA 34
http://myanamr-rundreisen.de - PA 36
I attach a file, you see there that google robot is recognizing the 301 redirecht from non-www to www ...
But, the site isn't doing good at all in google, it seems the home page has a penalty ... duplicate content due to non-www and www home page?
So it would be great if somebody has a hint for me ... my client is losing trust in me
Thx!
-
Thanks!
-
Matt Cutts talked about this a few years back....let me find it.
Basically where your server is (minus county specific) doesn't matter to Google.
Google understands that people share servers and it's not that important in the scheme of things. What does matter is server up time.
-
Thanks for your support! I think the last tool reports show a little improvement.
But one more information or possible problem(?): On the same server, in another directory, another site of the client is hosted, which has a very good Google standing for 6 or 7 years.
The HTML structure is similar, and it depends on the same CMS and similar CSS.
So could this be a problem for Google? Should the site be moved to another provider?
Once again thx
Guenter
-
Yes Agreed. I guess its a waiting game for him to see how effective it has been placed.
But in my instances rel=canonical always solved the problem for dup content.
Thanks Darin
-
Yes, both can get indexed especially if preferences and 301s weren't in place the last time Google crawled. I've noticed it takes time for Google to use the canonical on a page. I've seen it take 4 or 5 crawls for it to take effect correctly. But don't forget it's just a suggestion and not a directive. I think Google wants to make sure that it's in the best interest of the site before it adheres to it (just a guess)
Don't forget too that Google will only crawl a portion of a site when it crawls (especially for bigger sites) to make sure it doesn't take up to much bandwidth on your server. The home page may not have been crawled since the element has been put in.
-
Yes, thanks,
I forgot to mention, this was set some weeks ago and in Google's cached cersion the rel=canonical tag ist in the source code, so they should habe the newest page.
Just edited the post above a few seconds after your question
-
Yes, how long ago did you set this?
Has google since indexed your page
-
Thanks, I've set since a couple of weeks
<link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/](view-source:http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/)" /> That should be fine?
-
Thanks, yes, the preferred domain ist set to www
-
Darin has a good point. Set your preferences
Also Rel=canonical
Darin if i am not mistaken maybe you can shed some light , dont both pages still get indexed even if its redirected with a 301? I am sure a rel=canonical will solve the issue !
Best Wishes,
Hampig M
BizDetox
-
Have you set your preferred domain in Google Webmaster Tools?
(Make sure you have verified both versions of your domain)
Configuration > settings > preferred domain > radial for the www version
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
-
Hello, I've heard that the outbound links I provide in my content should have a high degree of relevancy to the topic I'm writing about or they aren't really worth including. Is this true?
Hello, I've heard that relevancy of the content between the source page and the target page of outbound links in my content matters greatly. The outbound links I provide in my content should have a high degree of relevancy to the topic I'm writing about, or they aren't really worth including. Example: Don't just link to the homepage of an organization mentioned in the article, link to a page on their site that is related to the topic you are writing about. Is this true? Would including less relevant links negatively impact SEO in any way?
On-Page Optimization | | DJBKBU0 -
Why doesn't MailChimp use an SSL certificate on their homepage?
MailChimp, one of the biggest brands in online marketing doesn't use an SSL certificate on their homepage...Is there a simple reason for this? Wouldn't they get an SEO boost from having one?
On-Page Optimization | | WickVideo1 -
Understanding why our new page doesn't rank. Internal link structure to blame? + understand canonical pages more.
Hi guys. Sorry it's an essay...BUT, i think a lot of you will find this an interesting question. This question is in 2 (related) parts, and I imagine it would be an 'advanced' SEO question. Hoping you guys can help bring some real insight 🙂 Always amazed at the quality for this forum/ community. **Context... ** We had a duplicate content issue caused by this page and it's product permutations, so we placed canonical tags on all the product permutations to solve it. Worked a treat. However, we now have more **product ranges. **We now sell Diaries, Notebooks & Music books, which are clearly different from one another. So...we've placed canonical tags on all the product permutations leading back to the 'parent' theme. In other words, all the diary permutations 'lead back' to the diary page. All the notebooks permutations 'lead back' to the main notebook page. So on and so forth. Make sense so far? Context end..... Issue. Amazingly our Diary page outranks our notebook pagefor the search term 'Design your own Notebook'. The notebook page is well optimised for this search term, and the diary page avoids the word 'notebook' altogether (so no keyword cannibalisation going on). Possible reason? Our Diary page has a vast amount of internal links to it throughout our site. The notebook page has only a few. Could this be the issue? If so, what reading/ blogs/ content/ tools would you recommend to help understand and solve this problem? i.e) Better understanding internal link structure for SEO. 2nd part of the question (in the context of internal linking for SEO). When there are internal links to a page with a conical tag does that 'count' towards the 'parent page', or simply towards that specific page? I really hope that makes sense. If it's clear as mud just shout. Isaac. EDIT: All pages in question have been indexed since we added these changes to the site.
On-Page Optimization | | isaac6630 -
How can you activate the 'Results From' internal search bar on Google SERP?
Hi There, I am hoping someone can advise me on getting the 'Results From' sitelink to display for my site on the Google SERP? I have searched far and wide for the answer with no luck. I'd really appreciate your advice. Thanks! Internal_Search_Google_SERP_zps75a5383e.jpg
On-Page Optimization | | tmg.seo0 -
Keyword repeats/presence in url's & over-optimisation
Hi I'm about to launch a redesigned site and worried about overdoing kw presence on-page, primarily using in url's since will already be using kw in titles as well as page content. What's current thinking re over optimisation: If kw is in titles and page content is it best not to repeat again in url structure i.e. less is more, even though this will cause things like SeoMoz on-page grade score to fall, or better to keep them/add them ? Personally i think it makes sense to include kw in url again since helps make the page relevant, and so long as matches the content should help as opposed to hinder rankings for the pages target keyword. However when i look into this some say don't do this since is over-optimisation The sites generally ranking quite well for its target kw which i obviously don't want to lose after re-launch & hopefully improve further, in the case of this example they are 'Sports Centre Services' & 'Sports Centre Equipment Rental'). The sites current url structure is similar to this below example: frankssportscentres.com/services/sports-centre-equipment-rental Would it be better to keep following existing/above format or to go with either of the below options i.e. more kw rich urls or less: frankssportscentres.com/sports-centre-services/sports-centre-equipment-rental Or frankssportscentres.com/sports-centre-services/equipment-rental Or even less frankssportscentres.com/services/equipment-rental Many Thanks in advance for any helpful comments Cheers Dan
On-Page Optimization | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Google's view on geolocated results
Hello everyone, I am working on a project so the website is not online at the moment. My question is about Google's view on geolocated results : on the mainpage of the website, a bloc will be displaying local classifieds according to where the visitor is located. What will be Google's view on this bloc as it has no location ? A white empty bloc ? Bonus question : do you have any experience regarding this kind of situation ? How do you best deal with it in your opinion ? Thanks for your help ! Best Regards, Raphael
On-Page Optimization | | Pureshore0 -
Appropriate SEO strategies for a website's own SERPs?
Hello all, What are good on-page SEO practices for the search result pages on our own sites? For instance, what page titles do you use? Do you include page numbers? Meta-descriptions? Headers? Keyword utilization? This is a consideration for us as we link to some popular search results on our sites. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | DanSerpico0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0