Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Disclaimer - it's us that's built this, as a fix to Twitter's recent API issues. We're not looking to sell/spam the masses here (no, really honest), just looking for some good old honest feedback from the Moz community please, i.e. what do you think, any bugs/does it work for you, do you find it useful etc?
Cheers all,
James
It certainly does help, many thanks Paul - hugely appreciated.
That's correct - they are the same page.
To better explain, this is all done old-school via FTP, so any edits or changes I make to the file/page "index.html" apply to the following URL's
Is there any harm in telling search engines that the Canonical version of a page IS the same page?
(Actually, there were LOADS more but I've got fixes in place for most of these)
Many thanks Istvan - I'll give that a try.
Firstly, this is for an .asp site - and all my usual ways of fixing this (e.g. via htaccess) don't seem to work.
I'm working on a site which has www.home.com and www.home.com/index.html - both URL's resolve to the same page/content.
If I simply drop a rel canonical into the page, will this solve my dupe content woes?
The canonical tag would then appear in both www.home.com and www.home.com/index.html cases.
If the above is Ok, which version should I be going with?
- or -
Thanks in advance folks,
James @ Creatomatic
Firstly, this is for an .asp site - and all my usual ways of fixing this (e.g. via htaccess) don't seem to work.
I'm working on a site which has www.home.com and www.home.com/index.html - both URL's resolve to the same page/content.
If I simply drop a rel canonical into the page, will this solve my dupe content woes?
The canonical tag would then appear in both www.home.com and www.home.com/index.html cases.
If the above is Ok, which version should I be going with?
- or -
Thanks in advance folks,
James @ Creatomatic