Canonicalising To A 301?
-
Hi there,
We currently make use of a 301 rule to always return the trailing slash version of any URL on the site.
Recently, it seems that the canonical tag was implemented incorrectly. Here's an example:
http://www.zando.co.za/women/shoes is redirected to
http://www.zando.co.za/women/shoes/ (trailing slash)
However, our canonical tags, across the site, are going to the non-slash version, as follows:
I'm right in saying this really damaging? Also, if I instruct the Dev team to implement a site-wide fix by adding the trailing slash in all cases, can I expect any weird side affects on my current rankings/indexation?
If so, I can only imagine it being a short-term thing as Google re-aligns it's index of our site?
I treat canonical tags with plenty of caution.
Any insights appreciated.
Cheers,
P.
-
Thanks Good Doctor,
Cheers,
P
-
I agree with everything Dr. Peat said. Those are all extremely Likely reasons for your site showing a Forward / or not and strongly agree with Dr. Peat you should follow tip and match the correct rel="canonical regardless of anything. Even if you think the URL is An exact match one you have told Google you want to have rel="canonical Happy New Year! Tom
-
It's certainly a mixed signal. It's hard to predict what Google will do, and they may just ignore the canonical in that case, but I've seen enough problems that I wouldn't take chances with it. My gut feeling is that the 301 is probably overpowering the canonical (and your Google index is showing the trailing slash in most cases), but I'd fix the canonical. You could see some short-term bounce, but I think it's for the best long-term.
FYI, you've got a ton of title tag duplication within the "/women" pages - you might want to look at adding some uniqueness to the deeper pages. That's unrelated - just something I noticed.
-
Precisely,
After reading various sources, it seems that the fix's pro's would outweigh any possible short term fluctuations.
Besides, I'm sure Google is smart enough to treat trailing-vs-non-trailing-slash URLs without as much variation as, say, one with a different structure.
Wonder if encoding has plays a part? Hahaha. More questions... I do love SEO.
-
PS not all of your webpages shows no forward /
http://www.zando.co.za/Nike-Brazilia-Duffle-Bag-Purple-47577.html
-
Best practices states that you should put the URL is it shows in browser. So if there is a / the rel="canonical should have / hope that that helps
should be
all the best,
Tom
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
-
Need 301 Advice with a Recovered URL from a Domain Typosquatter
I am new to a SMB and someone bought the plural version of our domain back in 2005 and has yet to let it expire. The domain was just renewed for another year so we finally decided to contact a lawyer and go through the domain name dispute process. This seems like a pretty cut an dry case and the lawyer is very confident that we'll have the domain within 30-40 days. Currently the plural version domain 303s to spammy web pages, shows shady ads and is just a malicious looking page in general. I am not savvy enough to know the exact complexities of what's happening on the backend but it's spammy. Knowing the history of the plural version domain, how would you treat it after we acquire it? Obviously, I wouldn't want to put our site in jeopardy by 301ing the plural version of our URL to our current healthy site but at the same time many customers might go to that domain by accident so eventually I'd like to 301 it. If it's any help, the plural version has a robots.txt that prevent G from crawling it..thank you in advance for your guidance!
Technical SEO | | ssimarketing0 -
Canonicalisation
Hi Im looking at a clients site canonicalisation usage and in regard to some comments the tags referential value is a node (not the same as the actual page url) does this make sense or sounds like incorrect usage ? For example: URL ** ** Canonical Tag domain.com/comment/6 domain.com/node/21 Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Increase 404 errors or 301 redirects?
Hi all, I'm working on an e-commerce site that sells products that may only be available for a certain period of time. Eg. A product may only be selling for 1 year and then be permanently out of stock. When a product goes out of stock, the page is removed from the site regardless of any links it may have gotten over time. I am trying to figure out the best way to handle these permanently out of stock pages. At the moment, the site is set up to return a 404 page for each of these products. There are currently 600 (and increasing) instances of this appearing on Google Webmasters. I have read that too many 404 errors may have a negative impact on your site, and so thought I might 301 redirect these URLs to a more appropriate page. However I've also read that too many 301 redirects may have a negative impact on your site. I foresee this to be an issue several years down the road when the site has thousands of expired products which will result in thousands of 404 errors or 301 redirects depending on which route I take. Which would be the better route? Is there a better solution?
Technical SEO | | Oxfordcomma0 -
301: Dynamic URL to Static Page
I've been going around trying to get this dynamic url to redirect in the .htaccess file. I know I'm missing something but can't figure it out. Code: RewriteEngine on
Technical SEO | | ohlmanngroup
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^/dynamic-url.php?id=43$
RewriteRule ^$ http://static/page/url/inserted/here? [R=301,L] Suggestions?0 -
301 issue in IE9
My development team recently discovered an issue with 301 redirects caching in IE9. They did some research and found the situation was very complicated so their solution was to use 302s and no longer use 301s. As a temporary solution to a few URLs I was okay with this, but we have a site redesign launching in a few months and I am quite worried if we have to do all of our redirects as 302s. Has anyone else had this issue with IE9 and 301s. I could use any advice on how to overcome this issue. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | SEI0 -
Should we 301 redirect our old domain to the new domain
We have a product that when started was under the domain appnowgo.com. We've since changed the name and the domain is now knackhq.com. The latter domain doesn't rank nearly as well as the former for many of the keywords we are targeting. For example... "online database builder" and "web app builder" are two of those keywords. Obviously having app in the domain is not a bad thing but it is our old name. The question is, should we 301 the appnowgo.com domain to knackhq.com? Or should we use that better rank and just link users to knackhq.com from the appnowgo.com site until we can increase our ranking for knackhq.com? We don't plan to update the content on appnowgo.com anymore and we obviously don't want to drop off rank if at all possible. Thanks! Eric
Technical SEO | | sitestrux0 -
301 or a 404
Just had a discussion with a collegue about a page on our own website. We have some cases which are outdated. These pages receive some visitors but they arrive there when they search for the clients brand name, so for us they are irelevant. What's the best way to handle these kind of pages? Is a 301-redirect to the showcase overview the way to go or do we make it a 404 and include the showcase overview in this 404?
Technical SEO | | nvs.nim0 -
301 redirects and OSE
We run a blog/video real estate site (yochicago.com) as one of the venues for sponsored content for our clients looking for off-page SEO and inbound links. I'm working with a client who we've linked to a handful of times in the last few weeks, but I'm not seeing any external links from our site on PRO/OSE. Come to find that our writer has been linking to http://clientsite.com, instead of http://www.clientsite.com, which is the canonical site. I wouldn't have thought that this would make a difference, and about an hour of web research seems to confirm that it shouldn't make a difference, save for losing a little bit of SEO credit. What am I missing? Any input would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | mikescotty0