Duplicate content issue index.html vs non index.html

[Ideas-Money-Art]

Hi

I have an issue. In my client's profile, I found that the "index.html" are mostly authoritative than non "index.html", and I found that www. version is more authoritative than  non www. The problem is that I find the opposite situation where non "index.html" are more authoritative than "index.html" or non www more authoritative than www.

My logic would tell me to still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html". Am I right?

and in the case I find the opposite happening, does it matter if I still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html"?

The same question for www vs non www versions?

Thank you

[KaneJamison]

Yes, I like using rewrites in an .htaccess file, which is covered in the links above.

[depi]

I fix the 2 URLs.

In this case domain.com/index.html  is the code for  domain.com/.

Do you mean to use mode_rewrite and create a 301 redirect from domain.com/index.html  to  domain.com/ ?

Thank you for your time.

[mediabase]

<colgroup><col span="30" width="64"></colgroup>

Hi Taysir, first of all ypou must take an overview with what is duplicate content? Solving the cannonical problems with www.
Duplicate Content Issues in www & non www
I hope that your query had been solved.

[Dr-Pete]

It's very likely that the "index.html" version is more authoritative because you're using it in internal links. The problem is that that often creates a duplication issue - you refer to the root (non-index.html) version in inbound links, social, etc. (and people tend to link and bookmark the root version), but then link internally to "index.html", so Google will end up indexing both.

If the authority is coming from internal links, and you:

(1) Switch the internal links to the root ("/")

(2) 301-redirect "index.html" to the root ("/")

...you shouldn't lose any authority, as you'll have re-routed it by doing step (1). You'll also consolidate your signals and be better off all-around, IMO.

Kane's right, though - it's a bit tough to tell without knowing the specifics.

[KaneJamison]

Redirecting the authoritative link to the less authoritative URL is not ideal.

However, in my opinion being consistent with URLs throughout the site takes precedent.

Implementing 301 redirects will indicate that there has been a permanent relocation of that pages content, and you will get most of the link value from the authoritative link. That said, if you feel comfortable emailing the person who created that authoritative link, it's worth a little effort to ask them to change it, but if it's a hassle to do so, don't push it.

[KaneJamison]

How to redirect  domain.com/index.html  to  domain.com/index.html?

Those two URLs are the same, so there is nothing to change. If you wanted to redirect domain.com/index.html  to  domain.com/ then you would do so with 301 redirects. Here's a guide on getting started:

http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/url-rewrites-and-301-redirects-how-does-it-all-work

[depi]

I personally would rewrite & redirect everything using the 2nd option above.

Can you explain me how to do that, please?

How to redirect  domain.com/index.html  to  domain.com?

Thanks

[Ideas-Money-Art]

thank you for your detailed answer but one more thing does it matter if I redirect a more authoritative link to a weaker one for the benefit of staying consistent and vice versa?

let s say I redirect a non index.html to an index.html and vice versa for the sake of consistency?

[KaneJamison]

You should stick with one format across the site:

1. domain.com/index.html and domain.com/subfolder/index.html
   **OR **

2. domain.com/ and domain.com/subfolder/

I typically choose the second option because it is agnostic of CMS or file type, and it looks better in my opinion. I would not mix the two across the site because it causes a confusing user experience.

So, to answer your questions directly:

My logic would tell me to still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html". Am I right?

No, not necessarily. By telling us that there are examples where .html is more authoritative and there are examples where it isn't as authoritative, it's impossible for us to say which is the better choice. I personally would rewrite & redirect everything using the 2nd option above.

**The same question for www vs non www versions? **

I believe that WWW vs non-WWW is less important. You could decide based upon which format has more links or which one has been historically used. Consistency (using the same across the entire site), proper 301 redirects, and proper rel canonical tags are your priorities here.