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
-
How are these links being displayed?
How does one markup their site to get the small sitelinks to appear in SERP listings as seen in the example image below? jJiQYy3
Technical SEO | | SelectHub0 -
Optimizing internal links or over-optimizing?
For a while I hated the look of the internal links page of Google Web Master Tools account for a certain site. With a total of 120+K pages, the top internal link was the one pointing to "FAQ". With around 1M links. That was due to the fact, on every single page, both the header and the footer where presenting 5 links to the most popular questions. The traffic of those FAQ pages is non-existent, the anchor text is not SEO interesting, and theoretically 1M useless internal links is detrimental for page juice flow. So I removed them. Replacing the anchor with javascript to keep the functionality. I actually left only 1 “pure” link to the FAQ page in the footer (site wide). And overnight, the internal links page of that GWT account disappeared. Blank, no links. Now... Mhhh... I feel like... Ops! Yes I am getting paranoid at the idea the sudden disappearance of 1M internal links was not appreciated by google bot. Anyone had similar experience? Could this be seen by google bot as over-optimizing and be penalized? Did I possibly triggered a manual review of the website removing 1M internal links? I remember Matt Cutts saying adding or removing 1M pages (pages) would trigger a flag at google spam team and lead to a manual review, but 1M internal links? Any idea?
Technical SEO | | max.favilli0 -
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 -
How do I remove Links to my website???
Hi Guys, Please can anyone help!! Can anyone tell me how on earth I can remove links to my website? My website has been hit by the new penguin update and the company that was doing my SEO seems to have built a lot of spammy links!! How can I remove these links??? Please can anyone help Thanks Gareth
Technical SEO | | GAZ090 -
Link Juice
When we say "link juice", does it mean that a particular page has link juice ( due to backlinks pointing towards the page ) or each link on that page has link juice which it passes to the target page I suppose "link juice " is different from Pagerank ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
If two links from one page link to another, how can I get the second link's anchor text to count?
I am working on an e-commerce site and on the category pages each of the product listings link to the product page twice. The first is an image link and then the second is the product name. I want to get the anchor text of the second link to count. If I no-follow the image link will that help at all? If not is there a way to do this?
Technical SEO | | JordanJudson0 -
SEO LINKS
New to S.E.O. so excuse my naivety. I have made lots of new links some of them paid for e.g. Best of the Web but I don’t see any change in the latest competitive link analysis. Some of the links we have been accepted for just do not show. Also the keywords we are trying to promote the most have disappeared off the radar for over 2 weeks now. I think we have followed the optimization suggestions correctly. Please could you enlighten me. Regards Paul www.curtainpolesemporium.co.uk
Technical SEO | | CPE0 -
Should I have a 'more' button for links?
I have a website that has a page for each town. rather than listing all the towns with a link to each, I want to show only the most popular towns and have a 'more' button that shows all of them when you click it. I know that the search engine can always see the full list of links and even though the visitor can't this doesn't go against Google guidelines because there is no deception involved, the more button is quite clear. However, my colleague is concerned that this is 'making life hard' for the search engines and so the pages are less likely to be indexed. I disagree. Is he right to worry about this??
Technical SEO | | mascotmike0