Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Two URL's for the same page
-
Hi, on our site we have two separate URL's for a page that has the same content. So, for example - 'www.domain.co.uk/stuff' and 'www.domain.co.uk/things/stuff' both have the same content on the page.
We currently rank high in search for 'www.domain.co.uk/things/stuff' for our targeted keyword, but there are numerous links on the site to www.domain.co.uk/stuff and also potentially inbound links to this page. Ideally we want just the www.domain.co.uk/things/stuff URL to be present on the site, what would be the best course of action to take?
Would a simple Canonical tag from the '/stuff' URL which points to the '/things/stuff' page be wise? If we were to scrap the '/stuff' URL totally and redirect it to the 'things/stuff' URL and change all our on site links, would this be beneficial and not harm our current ranking for '/things/stuff'?
We only want 1 URL for this page for numerous reasons (i.e, easier to track in Analytics), but I'm a bit cautious that changing the page that doesn't rank may have an affect on the page that does rank!
Thanks.
-
Hello Julian,
If you follow my advice above you should be fine.
-
Thank you for the long and detailed answer, theres some great advice there.
Basically both URL's have the right keywords in, it's just the URL was changed a while back so both still remain on the site. The newer URL is the one that ranks high on Google, the old one doesn't appear at all. There is no need for the old one, it serves no purpose that the new one doesn't. So surely getting rid of the old one won't affect the new ones ranking?
I see you put I should have full rankings back within 3-6 weeks, but there would be no reason why the URL that currently ranks high would lose any ranking surely?
Thanks again.
-
I'm going to weigh in here with a slightly different opinion. I wouldn't just go with whichever one ranks best because I think he can do this without long-term damage to rankings and it would be best to go with whichever one he wants from a usability/branding perspective barring any major technological issues/costs.
Though he didn't say why, he did say "Ideally we want just the www.domain.co.uk/things/stuff URL to be present on the site..." and I'm going to assume they have reasons for this.
In that case, I'd follow this course of action:
#1 Apply a rel = "canonical" tag to both pages and reference the /things/stuff URL as canonical. Make this an absolute path (i.e. include http://www.domain.com)
#2 While waiting for search engines to see this tag go ahead and begin updating all internal links to /stuff/* and point them to /things/stuff* instead. You may need to do some mod URL rewrites to change the URLs used within the system. The point here is to change everything you can instead of relying on the redirects as a band-aid for a problem you can mostly fix.
#2.5 Do not change the links in the XML sitemap yet. You want search engines to have a crawl-path to the old URLs for awhile longer so they can find their way back to the page and see the redirect faster than they would by relying on their database of URLs to randomly crawl.
#3 Because there may be external links you do not have the ability to update, apply the 301 redirect from /stuff/* URLs to the counterpart /things/stuff* URLs.
#3.5 Resubmit the old XML sitemap. Google may reject it because of the redirects, but it does usually spark a fresh crawl of the site.
#4 Update the XML sitemap and submit with the new URLs.
#5 Monitor closely. Keep an eye on new 404 errors, as you may have to add additional redirects that fell through the cracks. Crawl the site with Screaming Frog, looking for redirect loops, redirect chains, 301s that could be updated to link directly to the destination, 404 errors, 500 errors, non-canonical URLs... Keep an eye on rankings and traffic from search. If all went well you should have full rankings back within 3-6 weeks. If you do not have it back by 6 weeks you may have a technical issue to deal with that is out of the norm, in my experience. At that point I'd start taking a close look at log files with Splunk.
Note: In this case I would NOT use Google's "URL Removal Tool" as it could possibly cause some of the external links from the URL you're removing to move over via the redirect to the new URL. The 301 and the fact that you are updating all internal links (and external links you have direct control of) to the new URL should get the old one out of the index in due time.
Note: This advice is for moving from one directory to another with the exact same page and structure on the same domain. There are important differences between that and moving to a new domain, or redirecting to content that isn't an exact replica of that on the original URL.
-
Since you have links pointing at them both, I would just redirect the lower ranking one to the higher ranking one. 301
The one that ranks better woud be the one I would keep. Sometimes redirects and url changes can take a while for search engines to find, even if you fetch as Google.
-
Hi,
it wouldn't harm the page no, having said that for site navigation purposes it might be a bit confusing having 301 redirects all over the place instead of the tag. It may help but there is never a guarantee essentially the canonical tag works the same as a 301 for link juice so you can always give that a go first and if nothing happens then 301 it but its up to you.
It comes down the the user would it benefit the user 301 or would it add to page load times or get confusing? If its a permanent site resign go for it though.
it is just telling search engines "this (the page) is the new home/location of the page you're looking for" then they will update their records to reflect it - a bit like when you move house and tell the postman you moved.
Good luck!
-
Thanks for your reply Chris. The thing is I don't need / want the page that isn't ranking in Google anymore, it serves no purpose other than to confuse things when looking at the Analytics! If I were to do a redirect from the page that doesn't rank to the page that does, that wouldn't harm the page that does rank would it?
The page that doesn't rank is linked to from the main navigation, but the page that does rank isn't! Would I be right in thinking a redirect may actually help the page that does rank, even more?
Thanks again.
-
Hi there,
the canonical sounds perfect! Personally I tend to put it on the link closer to the homepage but its preference really logically make the page that's stronger to start with the "original". No need to scrap, the tag will let you keep your layout but give the SEO benefit to just one page.
in short canonical is the perfect match for your needs!
More info - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
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
-
What is the best meta description for Category Pages, Tag Pages and Main Article?
Hi, I want to index all my categories and tags. But I fear about duplicating the meta description. for example: I have a tag name "Learn Stock Market", a category name "Learning", and a main article "What is Stock Market". What is your suggestion for meta description of these three pages that looks great for seo google?
On-Page Optimization | | mbmozmb0 -
Ranking dropped after change single page url, should I change it back?
I was making updates to the content on the following page, and a few days later dropped from #2 SERP ranking to 50+. Things I checked: Yes, 301 redirect was implemented right away. After publishing, I manually requested indexing in search console. Right after publishing I re-submitted the sitemap manually and Google said they had not crawled it in 9 days. My question: should I change the URL back to the old one, or give it a little more time (especially since I re-submitted sitemap) Original URL: https://www.travelinsurancereview.net/plans/travel-medical/ New URL: https://www.travelinsurancereview.net/plans/travel-medical-insurance/
On-Page Optimization | | DamianTysdal0 -
Duplicate 'meta title' issue (AMP & NON-AMP Pages)
how to fix duplicate meta title issue in amp and non-amp pages? example.com
On-Page Optimization | | 21centuryweb
example.com/amp We have set the 'meta title' in desktop version & we don't want to change the title for AMP page as we have more than 10K pages on the website. ----As per SEMRUSH Tool---- ABOUT THIS ISSUE It is a bad idea to duplicate your title tag content in your first-level header. If your page’s <title>and <h1> tags match, the latter may appear over-optimized to search engines. Also, using the same content in titles and headers means a lost opportunity to incorporate other relevant keywords for your page.</p> <p><strong>HOW TO FIX IT</strong></p> <p>Try to create different content for your <title> and <h1> tags.<br /><br />this is what they are recommending, for the above issue we have asked our team to create unique meta and post title for desktop version but what about AMP page?<br /><br />Please help!</p></title>0 -
Use of '&' in meta title
Hi, I know that use of '&' would be helpful to save space and also add more keyword variation to the title tag. But just want to make sure if it matters if I use '&' in most of my title tags? And also is it common to use more than & in one title? Would the following title be different in Google's perspective regardless of the title length? I am thinking they are all targeting the keywords 'fruit cake' and 'fruit bread', but the first one is the best. buy fruit cake & bread buy fruit cake & fruit bread buy fruit cake and fruit bread Thanks in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | russellbrown0 -
Content hidden behind a 'read all/more..' etc etc button
Hi Anyone know latest thinking re 'hidden content' such as body copy behind a 'read more' type button/link in light of John Muellers comments toward end of last year (that they discount hidden copy etc) & follow up posts on Search Engine Round Table & Moz etc etc ? Lots of people were testing it and finding such content was still being crawled & indexed so presumed not a big deal after all but if Google said they discount it surely we now want to reveal/unhide such body copy if it contains text important to the pages seo efforts. Do you think it could be the case that G is still crawling & indexing such content BUT any contribution that copy may have had to the pages seo efforts is now lost if hidden. So to get its contribution to SEO back one needs to reveal it, have fully displayed ? OR no need to worry and can keep such copy behind a 'read more' button/link ? All Best Dan
On-Page Optimization | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
How to properly remove pages and a category from Google's index
I want to remove this category http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/ and all the pages in that category (e.g. http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/7386.html ) from Google's index. I used the following string in the "Reomval URS" section in Google Webmaster Tools: http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/* is that correct or I better use http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/ ? Thanks in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | VinceWicks0 -
Missing meta descriptions on indexed pages, portfolio, tags, author and archive pages. I am using SEO all in one, any advice?
I am having a few problems that I can't seem to work out.....I am fairly new to this and can't seem to work out the following: Any help would be greatly appreciated 🙂 1. I am missing alot of meta description tags. I have installed "All in One SEO" but there seems to be no options to add meta descriptions in portfolio posts. I have also written meta descriptions for 'tags' and whilst I can see them in WP they don't seem to be activated. 2. The blog has pages indexed by WP- called Part 2 (/page/2), Part 3 (/page/3) etc. How do I solve this issue of meta descriptions and indexed pages? 3. There is also a page for myself, the author, that has multiple indexes for all the blog posts I have written, and I can't edit these archives to add meta descriptions. This also applies to the month archives for the blog. 4. Also, SEOmoz tells me that I have too many links on my blog page (also indexed) and their consequent tags. This also applies to the author pages (myself ). How do I fix this? Thanks for your help 🙂 Regards Nadia
On-Page Optimization | | PHDAustralia680 -
Is there a SEO penalty for multi links on same page going to same destination page?
Hi, Just a quick note. I hope you are able to assist. To cut a long story short, on the page below http://www.bookbluemountains.com.au/ -> Features Specials & Packages (middle column) we have 3 links per special going to the same page.
On-Page Optimization | | daveupton
1. Header is linked
2. Click on image link - currently with a no follow
3. 'More info' under the description paragraph is linked too - currently with a no follow Two arguments are as follows:
1. The reason we do not follow all 3 links is to reduce too many links which may appear spammy to Google. 2. Counter argument:
The point above has some validity, However, using no follow is basically telling the search engines that the webmaster “does not trust or doesn’t take responsibility” for what is behind the link, something you don’t want to do within your own website. There is no penalty as such for having too many links, the search engines will generally not worry after a certain number.. nothing that would concern this business though. I would suggest changing the no follow links a.s.a.p. Could you please advise thoughts. Many thanks Dave Upton [long signature removed by staff]0