Trailing Slashes In Url use Canonical Url or 301 Redirect?
-
I was thinking of using 301 redirects for trailing slahes to no trailing slashes for my urls.
EG: www.url.com/page1/ 301 redirect to www.url.com/page1
Already got a redirect for non-www to www already.
Just wondering in my case would it be best to continue using htacces for the trailing slash redirect or just go with Canonical URLs?
-
You are absolutely correct Kevin. By deciding to use a specific URL format on your site and consistently using the same format in all internal links you have done everything in your control. The overwhelming majority of the external links to your site will be correct.
Additionally, the links which use the wrong format will then be 301'd to their correct format rather then offering a 404 error. Only a very small percentage of links should require redirection and those that do will get it.
-
Hey Ryan,
Question here, but first the lead in. As you know, 301 redirects don't pass on 100% of link juice. I've set up my site to redirect all non-ww to www and all URLs to include a trailing slash. So now what happens to ranking when sites that link to my site don't include either the www or the trailing slash, which is actually quite common? Of course, asking the site owner to correct the link is ideal, but that's not always possible. So if thousands of links on external sites are linking to http://www.site.com instead of http://www.site.com/, won't lots of link juice get Lost in Redirection?
Kevin
-
Well never hurts to do both, thanks will look into runing both cononical and 301's
-
That's up to you, but I prefer to use both. The 301 redirect, once set up, should always work. At times a site experiences an issue whereby a .htaccess file is deleted, overwritten or modified accidentally. When that happens the issue may not be immediately discovered. Lots of headaches can be caused this way.
The canonical tag helps minimize the damage in this case, and also helps with the natural variations websites have such as a "print" version of a page.
-
Thanks Ryan, I suppose I'll leave out the Conanical tags
-
In my experience a 301 redirect is always the superior course of action. One reason is with a 301 redirect, you will ensure those who create links to your site will use the proper URL format. This way, your links go directly to the proper page without losing any link juice to a redirect.
Canonical tags are a great backup in case something goes wrong, but 301 redirects are always preferable.
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
-
301 Redirects, Sitemaps and Indexing - How to hide redirected urls from search engines?
We have several pages in our site like this one, http://www.spectralink.com/solutions, which redirect to deeper page, http://www.spectralink.com/solutions/work-smarter-not-harder. Both urls are listed in the sitemap and both pages are being indexed. Should we remove those redirecting pages from the site map? Should we prevent the redirecting url from being indexed? If so, what's the best way to do that?
Technical SEO | | HeroDesignStudio0 -
301 redirect homepage question
Hi If i have a homepage which is available at both www.homepage.com and www.homepage.com// should i 301 the // version to the first version. Im curious as to whether slashes are taking into consideration Thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | TheZenAgency0 -
Do I need both canonical meta tags AND 301 redirects?
I implemented a 301 redirect set to the "www" version in the .htaccess (apache server) file and my logs are DOWN 30-40%! I have to be doing something wrong! AddType application/x-httpd-php .html .htm RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^luckygemstones.com
Technical SEO | | spkcp111
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.htm
RewriteRule ^(.)index.htm$ http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L] IndexIgnore *
ErrorDocument 404 http://www.luckygemstones.com/page-not-found.htm
ErrorDocument 500 http://www.luckygemstones.com/internal-serv-error.htm
ErrorDocument 403 http://www.luckygemstones.com/forbidden-request.htm
ErrorDocument 401 http://www.luckygemstones.com/not-authorized.htm I've also started adding canoncial META's to EACH page: I'm using HMTL 4.0 loose still--1000's of pages--painful to convert to HTML5 so I left the / off the tag so it would validate. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks, Kathleen0 -
301 redirects on Windows server
Hi, We are soon moving www.ourumbrellaorganisationwebsite.co.uk/oldsubsidiaryname/index.aspx AND www.differentolddomainname.co.uk to just www.ourumbrellaorganisationwebsite.co.uk (an existing site which will no longer have the old subsidiary name sub section). How do we do the 301 redirects on a Windows server? Helicon has been suggested but I don't know it. I know we need to 301 redirect 'old' pages to the equivalent new ones, but is it a problem to do all of the old pages (there are lots) or should we just just do a few? is there ever a downside to doing individual redirects for an entire old site? Also, once the 301 redirects are in place from the old domain, is it possible to let the old domain expire and if so, at what point? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Houses0 -
Does 301 redirect cause penalty
Good Morning, I am considering doing a 301 (permanent) re-direct of roughly 100 domains, split between my 3 main e-commerce sites. Would taking an action like this put any of the 100 domains or any of the 3 recipient domains at risk of violating G's guidelines? Thanks...
Technical SEO | | Prime851 -
Why is the ideal rel canonical URL structure?
I currently have the rel canonical point to wepay.com/donations/123456. Is it worth the effort making it point to wepay.com/donations/donation-name-123456? I would also need to track histories if users change the vanity URL with this new structure.
Technical SEO | | wepayinc0 -
Which is best of narrow by search URLs? Canonical or NOINDEX
I have set canonical to all narrow by search URLs. I think, it's not working well. You can get more idea by following URLs. http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?material_search=1328 http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?finish_search=146 These kind of page have canonical tag which is pointing to following one. http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps Because, it's actual page which I want to out rank. But, all narrow by search URLs have very different products compare to base URLs. So, How can we say it duplicate one? Which is best solution for it. Canonical or NOINDEX it by Robots?
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
Problem with canonical url and session ids
Hi, i have a problem with the following website: http://goo.gl/EuF4E Google always indexes the site with session-id, although i use canonical url in this page. Indexed sites: http://goo.gl/RQnaD Sometimes it goes right, but sometimes wrong. Is it because we separate our session-id with ";" as separator? In the Google Webmaster Tools, i can´t choose jsessid as a parameter, so i think google does not recognize this. But if we have to change it (f.e. ? as separator) we have to spend many days in programming. Any ideas? thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | tdberlin0