Both links with ".html" and without are working , Is that a problem ?
-
Default format of my url ending with ".html" , I know it's not a problem .. But both links with ".html" and without are working , Is that critical problem or not ? and how to solve it ?
-
If the canonical tag is on the page, despite the fact the page loads in either version only the one that you have in your canonical tag will be indexed.
As far the Moz reports these are not updated minute by minute, to see if the canonical tag has fixed the problem in Moz's reports you'll have to wait till they do their next crawl (once a week). You may also use Google's Webmaster and ask for a re-crawl after you made changes.
Hope that helps,
Don
-
Thanks a lot ^_^ , But i need some help to apply this since i'm not developer
I already have canonical tag made by our developers but i don't know if it work properly , How could i know ?
I'm still getting duplicate content reports
I'll state the situation for you
www.example.com/somepage.html (site main format)
rel="canonical" for this page is = http://www.example.com/somepage.html
www.example.com/somepage (duplicate)
rel="canonical" for this page is = http://www.example.com/somepage
www.example.com/somepage/ (another duplicate)
rel="canonical" for this page is = http://www.example.com/somepage/
Is that right or not ?
and how can i measure if google see that as duplicate or not ?
Thanks
-
Hi Mohamed,
This is an important issue. By leaving both versions of the pages up, you run the risk of having it indexed twice and possibly suffer from duplicate content penalties.
There are a couple ways to fix it, but the easiest would be add a canonical meta tag to the page that points to the version your site should be using
**for no extension**
or
**with the extension**
The other way would be to modify your .htaccess file in your root directory to forward all traffic to whichever version you are using.
To force removal of the extension you could do this
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteRule ^([^.]+)$ $1.html [L,NC,R=301]To force extension you could do this
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^..html$
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^(.)$ $1.html [L,R=301]The htaccess should work on most host but if I remember correctly GoDaddy has some special requirements. Check with them if you are using them as a host.
Hope this helps,
Don
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
-
How handle pages with "read more" text query strings?
My site has hundreds of keyword content landing pages that contain one or two sections of "read more" text that work by calling the page and changing a ChangeReadMore variable. This causes the page to currently get indexed 5 times (see examples below plus two more with anchor tag set to #sectionReadMore2 This causes Google to include the first version of the page which is the canonical version and exclude the other 4 versions of the page. Google search console says my site has 4.93K valid pages and 13.8K excluded pages. My questions are: 1. Does having a lot of excluded pages which are all copies of included pages hurt my domain authority or otherwise hurt my SEO efforts? 2. Should I add a rel="nofollow" attribute to the read more link? If I do this will Google reduce the number of excluded pages? 3. Should I instead add logic so the canonical tag displays the exact URL each time the page re-displays in another readmore mode? I assume this would increase my "included pages" and decrease the number of "excluded pages". Would this somehow help my SEO efforts? EXAMPLE LINKS https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=More#sectionReadMore1 https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=Less#sectionReadMore1
Technical SEO | | DougHartline0 -
Competitors link building surely link farming ? but no punishment?
Hi there added a competitors metrics to see what they were doing and to my amazement they seem to have 1000+ links surely this is link farming considering we stay in a very remote area. also why would he be rewarded for this not punished? imgur.com/18dUqNL 18dUqNL 18dUqNL
Technical SEO | | ShauniBROWN2 -
How should I deal with "duplicate" content in an Equipment Database?
The Moz Crawler is identifying hundreds of instances of duplicate content on my site in our equipment database. The database is similar in functionality to a site like autotrader.com. We post equipment with pictures and our customers can look at the equipment and make purchasing decisions. The problem is that, though each unit is unique, they often have similar or identical specs which is why moz (and presumably google/bing) are identifying the content as "duplicate". In many cases, the only difference between listings are the pictures and mileage- the specifications and year are the same. Ideally, we wouldn't want to exclude these pages from being indexed because they could have some long-tail search value. But, obviously, we don't want to hurt the overall SEO of the site. Any advice would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | DohenyDrones0 -
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
Does img src="http: count as a link?
Hi All I have looked in WMT and it says I am getting a lot of links from 1 affiliate - they have 100,000 pages on their site but GWT is showing me 200,000 links from their domain - each of their pages has the following code. Mysite I think we have Nofollowed the link but does the img src="http://www.site.co.uk/affiliate/affiliation-images/470x80.gif also act as a link and if so do I need to Nofollow that too? The image is stored on our server so the affiliate is linking to the banner image on our server. Would something such as this affect my rankings in a negative way? Thanks
Technical SEO | | MotoringSEO1 -
Is it OK for a sitemap to appear as a "Top URL" in Google Webmaster?
I'm using Google Webmaster (alongside other tools) to understand how Google is indexing my site. One of the tools is "Content Keywords", where it lists keywords that Google sees as significant for your site. The keywords shown are generally fine, but when I click on an individual word, I am often seeing our sitemap as one of the "Top URLs" that the keyword is found on (our sitemap is at system/sitemap1.xml.gz) - is this OK? Obviously I don't want to add the sitemap URL to robots.txt, but I also want to ensure that 'real' user-focused pages (e.g. our homepage) appear higher in the "Top URLs" list for the keywords, as I'm assuming this is an indicator of how the site is performing in search. Any help appreciated!
Technical SEO | | anilababla0 -
302 vs. a href="nofollow"
we came across one thing the we did not asked to programm by our intention. we have a magento shop and on the produktpage we have those "compare" buttons. these link have a session id and the follow a 302 back onto the same page. so i beleive the idea is that google will just not follow 302s and thats it. so my questions is: is this right what we beleive if so why is a 302 better compared to a a href="nofollow" ???
Technical SEO | | kynop0 -
Honeypot Captcha - rated as "cloaked content"?
Hi guys, in order to get rid of our very old-school captcha on our contact form at troteclaser.com, we would like to use a honeypot captcha. The idea is to add a field that is hidden to human visitors but likely to be filled in by spam-bots. In this way we can sort our all those spam contact requests.
Technical SEO | | Troteclaser
More details on "honeypot captchas":
http://haacked.com/archive/2007/09/11/honeypot-captcha.aspx Any idea if this single cloaked field will have negative SEO-impacts? Or is there another alternative to keep out those spam-bots? Greets from Austria,
Thomas0