Does having a few URLs pointing to another url via 301 "create" duplicate content?
-
Hello!
I have a few URLs all related to the same business sector.
Can I point them all at my home domain or should I point them to different relevant content within it?
Ioan
-
Loan,
It seems like you're asking two different questions here: Do multiple 301's pointing to a single page create duplicate content--and Is it better to point 301's to your home page or a more relevant internal page. Is that right? The answer to the first question is no, you don't have to worry about duplicate content being caused by your 301 redirects. As far as the second question, it's usually best to point a 301 redirect to a page on a site that is the most relevant to the one being redirected. However, if the page you're thinking about redirecting isn't getting any search traffic and/or doesn't have any external links gong to it, your redirect won't really have an impact on your SEO
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
-
Is it Okay to have "No Response" pages?
Hi all, I can see some "No Response" pages which gives a error message "Site cannot be reached" or keeps on loading but don't. I have got this list from Screaming from spider tool. Do we need to fix these or ignore? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Key Word in URL - To Include or Exclude?
Hi MoZ Community, Key word inclusion in URL has been discussed a fair bit on here and curious for some feedback on two options on URL structure. Ran’s #3 tip from his recent ‘15 SEO Best Practices for Structuring URLs’ states that key word inclusion still has some value but I’m not too sure if we’re going too far with the below examples. We sell footwear and only footwear for Women, Men & Kids and use those words as our key menu headings at the top. Under each of the main headings within a mega menu the users then has the choice to ‘shop by style’, ‘shop by brand’ etc… The key question or feedback is about including the word ‘shoes’ in my URLs as many of the top ranking competitors do it. e.g. /women-shoes-heels, womens-shoes-sandals or womens-shoes/heels, womens-shoes/sandals I think Google is smart enough to determine we have a shoe store and not sure of the value from a SEO or user experience perspective of adding the additional word. Thoughts on going with option A or B would be valued.... Option A - http://shopname.com/womens/sandals, http://shopname.com/womens/heels OR Option B - http://shopname.com/womens-shoes/sandals, http://shopname.com/womens-shoes/heels Thanks, | | |
Algorithm Updates | | chewythedog
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |0 -
301 redirects
Hi, we have an old site hosted by company A. We rank for certain terms in google for certain brands and products. Now we have developed a new website on a new domain hosted by Company B. If we are 301'ing at brand/product/page level from old to new, who is it that should perform this job? Is it Company A or B, old or new? And does the physical website need to remain hosted for the 301 to work and for our SEO ranks on the old site to not fall apart? Company A think we can do an excel mapping doc for each link from old site to new. Hand file to Company A and they host this file (not the actual website) then we transfer old domain to Company A as well. Then the 301s will work fine. Yet Company B think we should continue hosting with Company A, keep the old physical site live and put the 301s in place. They say if the 301 link has content behind it then it will help or not take the chance of having the SEO affected? Who is right? Do you need the old website to remain live once 301s in place or can this 301 config file hosted on a domain be all we need to do? Any other ideas welcomed. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | YNWA0 -
Am I doing enough to rid duplicate content?
I'm in the middle of a massive cleanup effort of old duplicate content on my site, but trying to make sure I'm doing enough. My main concern now is a large group of landing pages. For example: http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/office-space/dallas http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/executive-suites/dallas http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/medical-space/dallas And these are just the tip of the iceberg. For now, I've put canonical tags on each sub-page to direct to the main market page (the second two both point to the first, http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/office-space/dallas for example). However this situation is in many other cities as well, and each has a main page like the first one above. For instance: http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/office-space/atlanta http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/office-space/chicago http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/office-space/houston Obviously the previous SEO was pretty heavy-handed with all of these, but my question for now is should I even bother with canonical tags for all of the sub-pages to the main pages (medical-space or executive-suites to office-space), or is the presence of all these pages problematic in itself? In other words, should http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/office-space/chicago and http://www.boxerproperty.com/lease-office-space/office-space/houston and all the others have canonical tags pointing to just one page, or should a lot of these simply be deleted? I'm continually finding more and more sub-pages that have used the same template, so I'm just not sure the best way to handle all of them. Looking back historically in Analytics, it appears many of these did drive significant organic traffic in the past, so I'm going to have a tough time justifying deleting a lot of them. Any advice?
Algorithm Updates | | BoxerPropertyHouston0 -
Changes in Google "Site:" Search Algorithm Over Time?
I was wondering if anyone has noticed changes in how Google returns 'site:' searches over the past few years or months. I remember being able to do a search such as "site:example.com" and Google would return a list of webpages where the order may have shown the higher page rank pages (due to link building, etc) first and/or parent category pages higher up in the list of the first page (if relevant) first (as they could have higher PR naturally, anyways). It seems that these days I can hardly find quality / target pages that have higher page rank on the first page of Google's site: search results. Is this just me... or has Google perhaps purposely scrambled the SERPS somewhat for site: searches to not give away their page ranking secrets?
Algorithm Updates | | OrionGroup1 -
Will Parked Domain hurt My SEO as Duplicate Content?
Hello, I have one website (Migration Lawyers) and I have an extra 8 domains Parked so they are basically cloning the content of the site. so if the main site is: migrationlawyers.co.za and I have an addon domain migration-lawyers.com is that good or bad? is there a proper way to redirect the sites, will redirecting (301) subdomains be more effective? Thanks for your Input 🙂 0i8VXqr.png
Algorithm Updates | | thealika0 -
Moving content in to tabs
Hi, I'm kind of an SEO noobie, so please bare with me 🙂 On one of the sites I'm working on I got a request to move large blocks of content, just placed on the page currently, in to tabs. This makes sense. We tried it and it makes navigating through the information much easier for visitors. My question is: Will Google consider this as hiding information? It's not loaded dynamically. It's all their when the page is loaded, in the source, but not displayed until the visitor clicks the tab. Will this cause SEO issues? Thank you!
Algorithm Updates | | eladlachmi0 -
ECommerce site being "filtered" by last Panda update, ideas and discussion
Hello fellow internet go'ers! Just as a disclaimer, I have been following a number of discussions, articles, posts, etc. trying to find a solution to this problem, but have yet to get anything conclusive. So I am reaching out to the community for help. Before I get into the questions I would like to provide some background: I help a team manage and improve a number of med-large eCommerce websites. Traffic ranges anywhere from 2K - 12K+ (per day) depending on the site. Back in March one of our larger sites was "filtered" from Google's search results. I say "filtered" because we didn't receive any warnings and our domain was/is still listed in the first search position. About 2-3 weeks later another site was "filtered", and then 1-2 weeks after that, a third site. We have around ten niche sites (in total), about seven of them share an identical code base (about an 80% match). This isn't that uncommon, since we use a CMS platform to manage all of our sites that holds hundreds of thousands of category and product pages. Needless to say, April was definitely a frantic month for us. Many meetings later, we attributed the "filter" to duplicate content that stems from our product data base and written content (shared across all of our sites). We decided we would use rel="canonical" to address the problem. Exactly 30 days from being filtered our first site bounced back (like it was never "filtered"), however, the other two sites remain "under the thumb" of Google. Now for some questions: Why would only 3 of our sites be affected by this "filter"/Panda if many of them share the same content? Is it a coincidence that it was an exact 30 day "filter"? Why has only one site recovered?
Algorithm Updates | | WEB-IRS1