Home page canonical issues
-
Hi,
I've noticed I can access/view a client's site's home page using the following URL variations -
http://example.com/
http://example/index.html
http://www.example.com/
http://www.example.com/index.htmlThere's been no preference set in Google WMT but Google has indexed and features this URL - http://example.com/
However, just to complicate matters, the vast majority of external links point to the 'www' version.
Obviously i would like to tidy this up and have asked the client's web development company if they can place 301 redirects on the domains we no longer want to work - I received this reply but I'm not sure whether this does take care of the duplicate issue -
Understand what you're saying, but this shouldn't be an issue regarding SEO. Essentially all the domains listed are linking to the same index.html page hosted at 1 location
My question is, do i need to place 301 redirects on the domains we don't want to work and do i stick with the 'non www' version Google has indexed and try to change the external links so they point to the 'non www' version or go with the 'www' version and set this as the preferred domain in Google WMT?
My technical knowledge in this area is limited so any help would be most appreciated.
Regards,
Simon. -
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my question - I'm going to implement 301 redirects and put this issue to bed!
-
Canonical tags are only a bandaid and not the best practices solution as a single action. Search engines require that multiple signal points all reaffirm and reinforce other signals. While canonical tags can help, if a high volume of links (either from other sites or even from within the site itself) point to other versions, this can cause confusion within the multi-algorithm eco-system.
I have seen many sites that have linked to their home page using three different URL variations right within links in their own site so don't discount that concept.
-
Hi Remus,
He was only talking about 1 domain as I read it so you may be confused. The 301 is a stronger signal than a canonical, also, you do not want other versions of the same URL functioning as then they could be shared out and so you have links coming into different URLs for the same page. The 301 redirect eliminates that possibility.
-
Hi Simon, from their answer it looks like they did not understood the problem.
My oppinion is that you don't necessarily have to use 301, you could easily use canonicalization.
Here you got everything explained -> http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization
Maybe you should give them this link also.
Essentially all the domains listed are linking to the same index.html page hosted at 1 location
"... when multiple pages have the same content but different URLs, links that are intended to go to the same page get split up among multiple URLs. This means that the popularity of the pages gets split up." and ..."Each of these URLs spreads out the value of inbound links to the homepage. "
So, it does not matter only were all the domains are linking too -> this is just a small part of the problem -> even more, links that are intended to go to the homepage -> they will be split up as a result.
-
No problem Simon! This community is always happy to help!
I'm just one of many here. C'mon back there are tons of smart marketers here with awesome insights.
-
Thanks for the quick response Jesse, its great to receive your thoughts and that makes me feel much better about how to tackle the situation!
Cheers,
Simon. -
mmmm. ice creaaammmm...
-
Ditto +1 with ice cream on top for what Jesse said.
-
You need to pick one and 301 everything to it. It really doesn't matter if you go with the www version or the non-www version. That can be up to you or the client. But you need to explain to these web developers that they are absolutely incorrect and that it very much IS an SEO issue. A huge one in fact.
Explain to them that even though all of the listed URL variations are indeed drawing from the same source HTML file, Google doesn't know or care about that and will see each and every one of those variants as a duplicate site indexed separately. This leads to penalties.
Furthermore, your link juice gets spread between them all. So if you have a link built to domain.com and another link to www.domain.com, the authority is split between them and you're basically competing with yourself 4+ times.
301 redirects solve this and every single website in the history of ever does (or should be) doing this. Ask your web developers to pick a major/semi-major brand and try accessing the different versions of said brand. try www.nike.com and http://nike.com - ask them how that resolves...
Silly that they would say that, but this should give you the reasoning to convince them otherwise. And if they still say no... They should be doing what you ask seeing as how your client is paying them and all...
Good luck!
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
-
Canonical urls - do my web pages need them?
Hello, I'm going round in circles with this issue, so hopefully someone can help... The Moz crawl of my website lists a number of pages as "missing canonical url". The pages are all different and do not have similar content. Do I need to add a canonical url to each page? My agency quoted the following (x referencing this page: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/consolidate-duplicate-urls) list itemYou would use Canonical URLs if: list item"...you have a single page that's accessible by multiple URLs, or different pages with similar content (for example, a page with both a mobile and a desktop version), Google sees these as duplicate versions of the same page." list itemThis is not the case here and so we would not propose to change anything. We could add Canonical URLs if the client feels that it is critical which occurs an additional cost. Any help / advice much appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | rj_dale0 -
Invert canonicals?
Hi, We have 2 sites, site A and site B. For now, some of our articles are duplicated on site B with rel canonicals towards site A. Starting now, Site B will be the main site for this category, we'll only post the content on this site. We will keep the old content on site A. But what do you think will happen if we invert the canonicals for the old articles? They would go towards site B. Would google eventually update its index, a bit like it would do for a redirect? Thanks !
Technical SEO | | AdrienLargus0 -
Website SEO Product Pages - Condense Product Pages
We are managing a website that has seen consistently dropping rankings over the last 2 years (http://www.independence-bunting.com/). Our long term strategy has been purely content-based and is of high quality, but isn’t seeing the desired results. It is an ecommerce site that has a lot of pages, most of which are category or product pages. Many of the product pages have duplicate or thin content, which we currently see as one of the primary reasons for the ranking drops.The website has many individual products which have the same fabric and size options, but have different designs. So it is difficult to write valuable content that differs between several products that have similar designs. Right now each of the different designs has its own product page. We have a dilemma, because our options are:A.Combine similar designs of the product into one product page where the customer must choose a design, a fabric, and a size before checking out. This way we can have valuable content and don’t have to duplicate that content on other pages or try to find more to say about something that there really isn’t anything else to say about. However, this process will remove between 50% and 70% of the pages on the website. We know number of indexed pages is important to search engines and if they suddenly see that half of our pages are gone, we may cause more negative effects despite the fact that we are in fact aiming to provide more value to the user, rather than less.B.Leave the product pages alone and try to write more valuable content for each product page, which will be difficult because there really isn’t that much more to say, or more valuable ways to say it. This is the “safe” option as it means that our negative potential impact is reduced but we won’t necessarily see much positive trending either. C.Test solution A on a small percentage of the product categories to see any impact over the next several months before making sitewide updates to the product pages if we see positive impact, or revert to the old way if we see negative impact.Any sound advice would be of incredible value at this point, as the work we are doing isn’t having the desired effects and we are seeing consistent dropping rankings at this point.Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you,
Technical SEO | | Ed-iOVA0 -
My number of duplicate page title and temporary redirect warnings increased after I enabled Canonical urls. Why? Is this normal?
After receiving my first SEO moz report, I had some duplicate page titles and temporary redirects. I was told enabling Canonical urls would take of this. I enabled the Canonical URLs, but the next report showed that both of those problems had increased three fold after enabled the canonical urls! What happened?
Technical SEO | | btsseo780 -
CSS Issue or not?
Hi Mozzers, I am doing an audit for one of my clients and would like to know if actually the website I am dealing with has any issues when disabling CSS. So I installed Web developer google chrome extension which is great for disabling cookies, css... When executing "Disable CSS", I can see most of the content of the page but what is weird is that in certain sections images appear in the middle of a sentence. Another image appears to be in the background in one of the internal link section(attached pic) Since I am not an expert in CSS I am wondering if this represents a CSS issue, therefore a potential SEO issue? If yes why it can be an SEO issue? Can you guys tell me what sort of CSS issues I should expect when disabling it? what should I look at? if content and nav bar are present or something else? Thank you dBCvk.png
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Geotargeting issue
Hi, So ive just starting working on a travel website and noticed that the .com website outranks the com.au in Australian SERPS, even though the .au site has been geotargeted (In GWT) for Australia.I also geotargeted the .com website to Canada (the primary place of business). Is this advisable? Will this affect rankings?
Technical SEO | | Tourman0 -
Canonical Tag Here?
Hello, I have a client who I have taken on (different to my other client in another question), My client has a ecommerce website and in nearly all of his products (around 30-40) he has a little information checklist like.. Made in the UK
Technical SEO | | Prestige-SEO
Prices from 9.99
Top quality
Free delivery on orders over.. This is the duplicate content, what is the best practise for this as the SEOmoz crawler is giving me a multiple of errors.0 -
Page crawling is only seeing a portion of the pages. Any Advice?
last couple of page crawls have returned 14 out of 35 pages. Is there any suggestions I can take.
Technical SEO | | cubetech0