Why do I get duplicate pages, website referencing the capital version of the url vs the lowercase www.agi-automation.com/Pneumatic-grippers.htm
-
Can I the rel=canonical tag this?
-
I'm not a pro when it comes to technical server set ups, so maybe Keri can jump in with some better knowledge.
It seems to me like you have everything set up on your server correctly. And it looks like Google currently has only one version indexed of the original page in question.
You site navigation menu points to the capitalized version of the URL, but somewhere on your site there must be a link that points to the lowercase version which would explain how SEOmoz found the duplication when crawling your site, and if SEOmoz can find, so can Google.
I still think you should use the rel=canonical attribute just to be safe. Again, I'm not that great at technical stuff. Sorry I couldn't be of more help here.
Tim
-
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your responses. This is what the IT team has found. Let me know your thoughts:
On the physical computer that hosts the website the page exists as one file. The casing of the file is irrelevant to the host machine, it wouldn't allow 2 files of the same name in the same directory.
To reenforce this point, you can access said file by camel-casing the URI in any fashion (eg; http://www.agi-automation.com/Lin...). This does not bring up a different file each time, the server merely processes the URI as case-less and pulls the file by it's name.
What is happening in the example given is that some sort of indexer is being used to create a "dummy" reference of all the site files. Since the indexer doesn't have file access to the server, it does this by link crawling instead of reading files. It is the crawler that is making an assumption that the different casings of the pages are in fact different files. Perhaps there is a setting in the indexer to ignore casing.
So the indexer is thinking that these are 2 different pages when they really aren't. This makes all of the other points moot, though they would certainly be relevant in the case of an actual duplicated page."
-
Hi Keri and Tim,
Thanks for your responses. This is what the IT team has found. Let me know your thoughts:
On the physical computer that hosts the website the page exists as one file. The casing of the file is irrelevant to the host machine, it wouldn't allow 2 files of the same name in the same directory.
To reenforce this point, you can access said file by camel-casing the URI in any fashion (eg; http://www.agi-automation.com/Linear-EscapeMents.htm). This does not bring up a different file each time, the server merely processes the URI as case-less and pulls the file by it's name.
What is happening in the example given is that some sort of indexer is being used to create a "dummy" reference of all the site files. Since the indexer doesn't have file access to the server, it does this by link crawling instead of reading files. It is the crawler that is making an assumption that the different casings of the pages are in fact different files. Perhaps there is a setting in the indexer to ignore casing.
So the indexer is thinking that these are 2 different pages when they really aren't. This makes all of the other points moot, though they would certainly be relevant in the case of an actual duplicated page."
-
Excellent points, Keri. I hadn't thought about either of those issues. Using a redirect is definitely the best way to go.
-
I'd vote for doing the rewrite to the lowercase version. This gives you a couple of added benefits:
-
If people copy and paste the URL from their browser then link to it, you're getting all the links going to the same place.
-
Your analytics based on your URLs will be more accurate. Instead of seeing:
urla.htm 70 visits
urlb.htm 60 visits
urlB.htm 30 visitsYou'll see
urlb.htm 90 visits
urla.htm 70 visits -
-
The problem is that search engines view these URLs as two separate pages, so both pages get indexed and you run into duplication issues.
Yes, using rel=canonical is a good way to handle this. I would suggest using the lowercase version as your canonical page, so you would place this bit of HTML on both pages:
The other option is to create a 301 redirect from the caps version to the lowercase version. This would ensure that anyone arriving at the page (including search engine bots) would end up being directed to the lowercase version.
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
-
Sudden decrease in indexed AMP pages after 8/1/16 update
After the AMP update on 8/1/16, the number of AMP pages indexed suddenly dropped by about 50% and it's crushing our search traffic- I haven't been able to find any documentation on any changes to look out for and why we are getting a penalty- any advice or something I should look out for?
Technical SEO | | nystromandy0 -
Some of my website urls are not getting indexed while checking (site: domain) in google
Some of my website urls are not getting indexed while checking (site: domain) in google
Technical SEO | | nlogix0 -
Getting a Vanity (Clean) URL indexed
Hello, I have a vanity (clean looking) URL that 302 redirects to the ugly version. So in other words http://www.site.com/url 302 >>> http://www.site.com/directory/directory/url.aspx What I'm trying to do is get the clean version to show up in search. However, for some reason Google only indexes the ugly version. cache:http://www.site.com/directory/directory/url.aspx is showing the ugly URL as cached and cache:http://www.site.com/url is showing not cached at all. Is there some way to force Google to index the clean version? Fetch as Google for the clean URL only returns a redirect status and canonicalizing the ugly to the clean would seem to send a strange message because of the redirect back to the ugly. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you,
Technical SEO | | Digi12340 -
Issue: Duplicate Page Content > Wordpress Comments Page
Hello Moz Community, I've create a campaign in Moz and received hundreds of errors, regarding "Duplicate Page Content". After some review, I've found that 99% of the errors in the "Duplicate Page Content" report are occurring due to Wordpress creating a new comment page (with the original post detail), if a comment is made on a blog post. The post comment can be displayed on the original blog post, but also viewable on a second URL, created by Wordpress. http://www.Example.com/example-post http://www.Example.com/example-post/comment-page-1 Anyone else experience this issue in Wordpress or this same type of report in Moz? Thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | DomainUltra0 -
How best to deal with www.home.com and www.home.com/index.html
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,
Technical SEO | | Creatomatic
James @ Creatomatic0 -
Redirect non www. domain to WWW. domain for established website?
Hey guys, The website in question has been online for more than 5 years but there are still 2 versions of the website. Both versions are indexed by Google and of course, this will result in duplicate content. Is it necessary to redirect the non-www domain to the www. domain. What are the cons and advantages? Will the www. links replace the non-www links when it comes to keyword rankings? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | BruLee0 -
Removing some of the indexed pages from my website
I am planning to remove some of the webpages from my website and these webpages are already indexed with search engine. Is there any way by which I need to inform search engine that these pages are no more available.
Technical SEO | | ArtiKalra0 -
Duplicate Page Content and Titles
A few weeks ago my error count went up for Duplicate Page Content and Titles. 4 errors in all. A week later the errors were gone... But now they are back. I made changes to the Webconfig over a month ago but nothing since. SEOmoz is telling me the duplicate content is this http://www.antiquebanknotes.com/ and http://www.antiquebanknotes.com Thanks for any advise! This is the relevant web.config. <rewrite><rules><rule name="CanonicalHostNameRule1"><match url="(.*)"><conditions><add input="{HTTP_HOST}" pattern="^www.antiquebanknotes.com$" negate="true"></add></conditions>
Technical SEO | | Banknotes
<action type="Redirect" url="<a href=" http:="" www.antiquebanknotes.com="" {r:1"="">http://www.antiquebanknotes.com/{R:1}" />
</action></match></rule>
<rule name="Default Page" enabled="true" stopprocessing="true"><match url="^default.aspx$"><conditions logicalgrouping="MatchAll"><add input="{REQUEST_METHOD}" pattern="GET"></add></conditions>
<action type="Redirect" url="/"></action></match></rule></rules></rewrite>0