How big of a problem is this? - link cannonicalization I think?
-
Hello! I'm new here. My moz Pro account is flagging my website for having 282 duplicate pages, which it is saying are critical issues. I looked at this and it seems like the problem is that many of my pages are being indexed like: www.joeborders.com and joeborders.com and oeborders.com/index. I think this is an issue with link cannonicalization...right? I contacted my website builder/host a while ago and they said they don't have a way to to link cannonicalization....is this a huge problem?...Is there some way to do it that I'm missing? Should i get a new website builder/host?
for reference, this is what my builder/host said when I asked them about it:
"Good question, at the moment we don't offer it, I will add it to our feature request list, as I think it would be a good idea. In a traditional hosting environment this would be using a htaccess file, since we are in ruby on rails environment we would need come up with a custom solution."
-
I'm using www.jigsy.com . It's pretty good, but there have been a few times when I've had to code my own html to get something to work
-
Lol. You're right. Sorry. I assumed you meant redirect through canonical links
-
Nice! This is exactly what the first part of my recommendation was.
-
Woot! I think I fixed this! Instead of using link cannonicalization I found out that I can to a site wide 301 redirect from the http:// version to the www. version. Does anybody think this is totally wrong? I researched in the Moz library for a while and I think this is an acceptable solution.
-
Thanks for the response Logan ^_^. I've read through the articles on Moz about how to use the cannonicalization tag, my problem is that I dont seem to have access to "joeborders.com" (without the www.) to be able to add the tag there. What do you think? ...as far as I know there is no way to do anything about this...unless I redirect the www. version to the other....but I think that would be detrimental to my google rankings.
-
Hi there,
There's two things that should be done to fix this:
The first is that www and non-www versions should not both be available, one version should redirect to the other version. It doesn't matter which you choose, but in your case, Google already has www indexed, so I'd go with that. This will take care of the first two examples of dupes (www.joeborders.com vs. joeborders.com).
The second is the canonical tag, assuming you go with the www version of your domain, your canonical tag would look like this: . This would take care of the /index issue.
You said this site was built using Ruby of Rails, that seems like overkill for a basic content site (unless there's more to it that I'm missing). You're probably overpaying for a solution that far too robust for what you need, so yes, you might consider searching for a new developer and hosting solution.
-
....I feel like this might seem like a dumb question. I've read about link cannonicalization in the Moz articles, but I don't know how to do anything about site wide cannonicalization ie http://joeborders.com ---->www.joeborders.com when I don't have access to http://joeborders.com.
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
-
Malicious Link
Hello all, We're doing an adwords campaign, and Google has said that there is a malicious link on the website we're looking to advertise - so cannot launch the campaign. I've tried to go through Search Console (I am a novice BTW). And it says that "Domain properties are not supported at this time". Which I don't understand. Any advice please?!
Technical SEO | | PartisanMCR0 -
301 Redirect for multiple links
I just relaunched my website and changed a permalink structure for several pages where only a subdirectory name changed. What 301 Redirect code do I use to redirect the following? I have dozens of these where I need to change just the directory name from "urban-living" to "urban", and want it to catch the following all in one redirect command. Here is an example of the structure that needs to change. Old
Technical SEO | | shawnbeaird
domain.com/urban-living (single page w/ content)
domain.com/urban-living/tempe (single page w/ content)
domain.com/urban-living/tempe/the-vale (single page w/ content) New
domain.com/urban
domain.com/urban/tempe
domain.com/urban/tempe/the-vale0 -
Strange problem with basic html anchor tag linking to my domain
I have some old valuable followed links from high ranking domains and I noticed from moz reports they are reporting 404.Visually they looked fne but when I clicked on those they indeed were generating 404. When I researched further they are defined as My domain.com Notice there is extra space between "/" and the closing quote. It turns out it is sending "www.mydomain.com/ " to browsers. Any ideas How to solve this? If I should put a perm redirect in apache, how do I deal with these "%C2%A0" characters. It seems the issue is happening at more than one remote domain.
Technical SEO | | Maayboli0 -
To many links on page. Big or small issue for eCommerce
On my site I have around 3k pages and about 90 categories. Most of which have a sensible number of products but some have only a few products and some have loads. if I have say 40 links on the page ignoring the producand is it a big problem if I have more than 60 products on the page? Assuming a link limit per page of 100 user wise we have filters and sorts for thme to find what they breed without issue. But simply from an seo point of view how damaging would I be to have the 23 "to many links on page issues? Worth fixing by making two categories and splitting out products even tho it would hinder the user.
Technical SEO | | mark_baird0 -
Are no follows leaking link juice?
Recently, in a discussion on resources pages EGOL informed me that just because I had no followed the links on my my resource page, I was still leaking link juice. He mentioned that this was a recent change in Google policy. This was quite a surprise. I have done a couple of searches on this recent change but have not found any information. Am I simply the last one on the planet to learn this and this change is widely known and understood? If so, does that mean honest resource pages (I have two such pages) that are there to help visitors are negatively impacting the site - at least in terms of SEO? If they are leaking link juice is it comparable to a followed link or a smaller amount that has less impact?
Technical SEO | | leatherhidestore0 -
Roger has detected a problem
SEOMOZ says Roger has detected a problem: We have detected that the domain www.romancebookstore.com.au does not respond to web requests. Using this domain, we will be unable to crawl your site or present accurate SERP information . What is wrong with this domain??
Technical SEO | | damientown0 -
I think google thinks i have two sites when i only have one
Hi, i am a bit puzzled, i have just used http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/anchors?site=in2town.co.uk to check my anchor text and forgot to put in the www. and the information came up totally different from when i put the www. in it shows a few links for the in2town.co.uk but then when i put in www.in2town.co.uk it gives me different information, is this a problem and if so how do i solve this | | | | | | | | |
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-184886
| | | | | | | | |0 -
Nofollow links if you have more than one link on a page to the same destination.
Hi, I am wondering if someone can confirm that its best practice to have nofollow on secondary links on a page. For instance the contact page may have a link in the navigation and in the the blurb down the page have another link to the contact page saying contact us here etc.. So in this instance i would put a nofollow on the secondary link in the blurb would this be the best way to impliment this. Many thanks Chris
Technical SEO | | InteractiveRed670