Redirecting all URLs appended with index.htm or index.html
-
It has come to my attention with one of my clients (WordPress website) that for some time they have within their Landing Page report (of GA - Google Analytics) URLs that should all be pointing to the one page, example:
domain.com/about-us, also has a listing in GA as domain.com/about-us/index.htm
Is this some kind of indication of a subdirectory issue? Has anyone had experience with this in such wordpress plugins as Yoast SEO, or other SEO plugin?
My thoughts here are to simply redirect any of these non-existent files with a redirect in .htaccess - but what I'm using isn't working. I will insert the redirect here - - and any help would be greatly appreciated.
RewriteEngine onRewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.html?
RewriteRule ^(.)index.html?$ http://www.dupontservicecenter.com/$1 [R=301,L]and this rewrite doesn't work:
RewriteEngine on
RewriteRule ^(.+).htm$ http://dupontservicecenter.com/$1.php [R,NC]_Cindy
-
ThompsonPaul,
Thank you! I've looked at that feature so many times, and read and reread the info Google provided, and clearly reading this information literally, as someone at my level would, it really doesn't specify whether adding the default page "adds" index.htm(l) to the url and therefore combines all "same-pages" or if it removes it to combine "same-pages"
-- and I assumed the later since that is what happens with permalinks in WP... go figure. Now I realize it adds. Also it didn't occur to me that this feature wouldn't act as a filter would and you would see the results right away.
OK so I have removed "index.htm" from the default page field, it is all clear now. Additionally I am also showing appended to my url's an "index.html" -- and this is in addition the actual url. So I am seeing, for example:
/about-us/ /about-us/index.htm and in some cases urls like /about-us/index.html.
I can only guess that at one time both of these default urls were in the default page setting... "index.html" and "index.htm" And anyway these pages with index.htm(l) do not exist, ...which would explain that right, likely this issue concerns settings in GA
-
So one more perplexing issue - in the search console landing page report I am showing 0 hits for any url appended with either index.htm or index.html.
-
But in the regular reporting of landing pages, and also custom reporting, these pages are showing hits (pages appended w index.htm(l)). What could cause this discrepancy?
-
As you suggestion it would take a bit of filtering to clean up these url's in Google Analytics? And so if it is in Google Analytics then any redirect in the htaccess file is for naught?
-
So a several weeks, likely for this small business site, to begin showing clean urls and to see if this is actually this issue?
Thank you so very much!
_Cindy
-
-
Thomas, thank you for your help. I did occur to me that perhaps the order of items in the htaccess file may be the issue.
I am going to look into this issue - thanks to your suggestion, and then see if my redirects are working as they should.
When I do, I'll get back to you on this topic.
Now, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the issue of why "index.htm and index html" when my site is WP based and therefore a PHP framework. ThompsonPaul has responded with what was my next look (and actually a 4th to 8th look) concerning the default page setting in GA.
Thanks again.
_Cindy -
Cindy, this is almost certainly an issue with the way your Google Analytics is configured, not your WP site. (the fact the "index.htm" comes after a "/" is the clue.
If you check the View Settings link under the View in the Admin section of your dashboard, you'll find a field called Default Page. For most correctly configured modern sites (WP sites included), this field must be empty for GA to be configured correctly. I'm betting your config has index.htm entered in that field. [See screenshot below.]
Once you remove that entry, your data will avoid the problem going forward, but it will take some work with custom filters if you want to try to clean up the historical data.
Let me know if that solves the issue?
Paul
-
Are you able to copy out your whole htaccess?
I've got to admit, i'm not the best with it but I'll try and help you figure this out
-
Hi Thomas,
Very much appreciate your reponse.
So far none of the redirects are working, including your suggestion. So I tested the htaccess file with this redirect, changing one of the redirects already listed in the htaccess file for some time now, which use to work...
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^dupontservicecenter.com/buying-and-selling$
RewriteRule ^$ http://dupontservicecenter.com/rewards/auto-service-credit [L,R=301]...not working, is redirecting to the old url, the one I changed.
I have purged cache (using litespeed cache for wp since I'm on a litespeed server these days). Could it be a purge issue? What would cause the htaccess file not to work properly?
The only redirect that is working is through a plugin for wp - quick redirects which uses the wp_redirect() function.
Totally lost in a haystack.
Any further suggestions would be helpful, otherwise, a complete, timely, breakdown of all website components will have to be proposed to the client.
_Cindy
-
https://moz.com/community/q/redirecting-index-html-to-the-root
StreamlineMetrics:
If you want to redirect all index.html(s) to their roots, then try this code -
RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^index.html$ / [R=301,L]
RewriteRule ^(.*)/index.html$ /$1/ [R=301,L]And yes, Google will treat them as 301 redirects so your juice will be transferred and consolidated.
Obviously, change index.html to index.htm
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
-
Does intercom support pages and redirect issue can affect the SEO performance of our website?
I noticed that in the redirect issues I have, most of the issues are coming from our Intercom support links. I want to ask, does intercom support pages and redirect issue can affect the SEO performance of our website?
Reporting & Analytics | | Envoke-Marketing0 -
Redirecting one domain to another using utm tags
I have two live websites, which have both been live for over 10 years, so we have plenty of backlinks to both...domain1.com & domain2.com. Domain 1 and all urls is being merged into domain2.com. So 301 redirects will be setup for every page of the site....domain1.com/abc-1234/ to > domain2.com/abc-1234/ In Google analytics for domain2.com we want to be able to see which visits we have received as a result of a redirect from domain1.com. It is possible to see these visits that come in via organic, referrals and social etc, as those will come to us with the referral as domain1.com. However, with direct traffic, i.e. if someone types domain1.com into their search bar, these visits will be assigned as direct and we are not able to tell in GA if those users have typed in domain2.com, or domain1.com to get to our webpage. There are some suggestions in forums of adding utm_source tracking to all redirects (and add canonicals to those urls pointing to the non utm_source version), but my concern is that Google is going to have to go through one extra step to reach the page on the redirected domain. So without the utm source code Google will follow this route
Reporting & Analytics | | Sayers
domain1.com/123/ to domain2.com/123/ With the utm source code Google will follow this route
domain.com/123/ to domain2.com/123/?utm_source... then see's canonical, so moves to domain2.com/123/ So essentially I am giving Google one extra step to follow before it gets to the equivalent page on the new site. Is this an issue, and/or are there any other ways to track this redirection without adding extra parameters to the url?0 -
Page Tracking using Custom URLs - is this viable?
Hi Moz community! I’ll try to make this question as easy to understand as possible, but please excuse me if it isn’t clear. Just joined a new team a few months ago and found out that on some of our most popular pages we use “custom URLs” to track page metrics within Google Analytics. NOTE: I say “custom URLs” because that is the best way for me to describe them. As an example: This page exists to our users: http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Ram_HD/2012/photos-interior/ But this is the URL we have coded on the page: cars-trucks/used-cars/reviews/2012-Ram-HD/photos-interior/ (within the custom variance script labeled as “var l_tracker=” ) It is this custom URL that we use within GA to look up metrics about this page. This is just one example of many across our site setup to do the same thing Here is a second example: Available page to user: http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Cadillac_ATS/2015/ Custom “var l_tracker=” /cars-trucks/2015-Cadillac-ATS/overview/ NOTE: There is a small amount of fear that the above method was implemented years ago as a work-around to a poorly structured URL architecture. Not validated, but that is a question that arose. Main Questions: Is the above implementation a normal and often used method to track pages in GA? (coming from an Omniture company before – this would not be how we handled page level tracking) Team members at my current company are divided on this method. Some believe this is not a proper implementation and are concerned that trying to hide these from Google will raise red flags (i.e. fake URLs in general = bad) I cannot find any reference to this method anywhere on the InterWebs - If method is not normal: Any recommendations on a solution to address this? Potential Problems? GA is currently cataloguing these tracking URLs in the Crawl Error report. Any concerns about this? The team wants to hide the URLs in the Robots.txt file, but some team members are concerned this may raise a red flag with Google and hurt us more than help us. Thank you in advance for any insight and/or advice. Chris
Reporting & Analytics | | usnseomoz0 -
Alternative domains redirected with 301 to the main domain
Hi everyone I've got a website which gained a Panda penalty back in March 2012 which was because of the implementation of a range of spammy practices (keyword stuffing in titles, indexed category and tag pages, duplicate domains). I've fixed the titles and deindexed any pages that could be seen as thin or duplicate so I'm confident that any onsite Panda issues have been fixed. As mentioned above the client had also created over 40 alternative domains to the website and pointed them to their main website folders (hence duplicating the website and content 40 times over). These domains have now been redirected via 301 redirects to the main website to ensure that any links they have gained are captured. The reason for the redirection is that we initially took the domains down and saw a drop in traffic and this seemed to be the most likely reason. While Moz and Majestic are not showing any significant links to these domains (which is why they where originally taken down), past experience has told me that these tools don't always pick up all referring domains. Primary domain workingvoices.com 5 Example Alternative Domains presentationskillslondon.com workingvoiceslive.biz workingvoices.co.uk livingvoices.co.uk working-voices.net Question 1: At the same time we took down the alternative domains (and experienced the drop in traffic) we removed duplicate instances of Google Analytics code from the webpages. All the guidance that we could find stated that duplicate instances of code shouldn't affect your Analytics numbers, hence we assumed it was the taking down of the alternative domains, but maybe the guidance we found was wrong? Question 2: It is 3 months later and these alternative domains are still indexed by Google, and Panda hasn't run since October 2014 so we haven't experienced a recovery yet. Redirecting the domains will remove any issue of a Panda penalty, but now of course I am worried about Penguin - the last thing I want to do is trigger that can of worms! This whole saga has been pretty complicated and I think I need some fresh sets of eyes. What does everyone think? Could the initial drop have been due to the duplicate Analytics code being removed? Could the redirecting domains trigger Penguin? Should we take the alternative domains down and be done with them? Any other thoughts! Looking forward to hearing your opinions! Damon.
Reporting & Analytics | | Digitator0 -
Google Webmaster Tools - spike in 'not selected' under Index Status
Hi fellow mozzers Has anyone seen a huge shift in the number of pages 'Not Selected' under Index Status in Google WMT, and been able to identify what the problem has been? My new client recently moved their site to wordpress - and in doing so the number of pages 'not selected' rose from ~200 to ~1100, It was high before but is ridiculous now. I am thinking there must be a new duplicate content issue which should be cleaned up in my quest to improve their SEO. Could it be the good old WP tag/category issue? In which case I won't worry as Joost is doing its job of keeping stuff out of the index. There are loads of image pages which could well appear as dupe as have no content on them (i do need to fix this), but Google is already indexing these so doesn't explain the ones 'not selected'. I've tried checking dupe title tags but there are very few of them so that doesn't help Any other ideas of how to identify what these problem pages maybe? Thanks very much! Wendy
Reporting & Analytics | | Chammy0 -
How long after a redirect should we see results?
In mid September we had to so some redirects from old URL's to new URL's. We haven't seen a significant jump in traffic so we are wondering how long this might take before we see a change. We are the brand so we should be getting some sort of authority from Google, yes? Any tips that can be offered would be grateful as we are stumped.
Reporting & Analytics | | K2_Sports0 -
301 redirects reduce traffic considerably
I recently identified an issue with our site whereby we had three different URL types for each article. As an example, we might have something like: /articles/my-article-name /articles/my-article-name.aspx /articles/My-Article-Name We've since taken action to address this by implement 301 redirects from the second and third formats to the first (so everything is without the .aspx extension and is in lower case). But the results have been disconcerting. Before the change, one of our articles receives 150 or so hits per day via the .aspx version. The other two existed but had very low traffic (1-3 per day). We decided the non .aspx and lowercase version was the version we wanted. Sure enough, when we introduced the 301 redirects on September 25th the traffic for the .aspx version just stopped (after a day) and the traffic for the non-.aspx version climbed. But not enough. After the change, the non-.aspx version is receiving about 60-70% of the traffic that we used to have on the .aspx version. So, instead of receiving 150 per day (to the .aspx version) we are receiving around 100 or so to the non-.aspx version. This pattern has occured across all our articles and, as a result, our site-wide traffic has dropped by about 40% or so. Since we are using 301 redirects I had assumed that the search engines would just update to reflect the non-.aspx version. I am sure I am missing something here. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks. Mark
Reporting & Analytics | | MarkWill0