Trailing slash and rel="canonical"
-
Our website is in a directory format:
http://www.website.com/website.asp
Our homepage display URL is http://www.website.com which currently matches our to eliminate the possibility of duplicate content.
However, I noticed that in the SERPs, google displays the homepage with a trailing slash http://www.website.com/
My question: should I change the rel="canonical" to have a trailing slash? I noticed one of our competitors uses the trailing slash in their rel="canonical"
Do potential benefits outweigh the risks?
I can PM further information if necessary.
Thanks for the assistance in advance...
-
Thanks for the help George and participating in the discussion. I like the ease of the syntax involved with the non-www version, but I think people's and browsers natural inclination towards the www version makes it the most practical at this juncture. Perhaps if you're building a new site the less traditional non-www might be used, but like yourself, I also prefer the www.
Thanks,
Marty
-
It's really up to you and your marketing team I suppose. Maybe ask which sounds better (e.g. "for the best jambalaya in town go to www.jambalaya.com!" vs. "for the best jambalaya in town go to jambalaya.com!").
I prefer www.example.com myself.
-
Yes, I realized my typo after I posted, thanks. We do use the www version consistently, so no problem there. That being said, what's your take on the www vs non-www preferred domain structure, I've noticed some popular site (mashable comes to mind) going away from the www preferred domain -- just like to hear differing opinions if/when you have the time.
Thanks,
Marty
-
Yes, I realized my typo after I posted, thanks. We do use the www version consistently, so no problem there. That being said, what's your take on the www vs non-www preferred domain structure, I've noticed some popular site (mashable comes to mind) going away from the www preferred domain -- just like to hear differing opinions if/when you have the time.
Thanks,
Marty
-
I don't think you will lose any link juice.
I also don't think it matters which URL you use for domain root. That said, it would matter if you were using http://www.domain.com versus http://domain.com. Otherwise, I don't think you need to worry.
-
Hello George, thank you for your helpful response. While I knew it was the case for absolute URLs and subdirectories, I was unsure whether it also pertained to the root domain. The link provided a helpful explanation, although SEO's have been, "reasonably sure that just about all search engines will be normalizing all those URLs to be the same," in the past only to have those certainties change unexpectedly. That being said, I think the forum made a good point in saying,"search engines generally don't want to deliberately add duplicates to their index."
With our canonical URL set to www.domain.com , do you believe there will be any loss of link juice with backlinks using both the domain.com and domain.com/ , or will it just be a better indicator to the search engines that both URLs are one in the same? Also do you think it matters that the domain root with the trailing slash is the one that shows up in the Google SERPs? --- to me that seems to indicate that Google prefers the root domain in directories to have a trailing slash
-
Hi Marty, there is really no difference between root domain URLs with or without trailing slashes.
Note, however, that this is not true for absolute URLs: http://www.example.com/page is not the same as http://www.example.com/page/. For absolute URLs that are not the root domain, you need to be pretty explicit about whether or not it has a trailing slash. Many content management systems (e.g. WordPress) will let you choose to have trailing slashes or not.
At this point, I don't think you need to do anything with your homepage canonical URL since it is the same as adding a trailing slash.
Hope this helps!
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
-
Does anyone know how to fix this structured data error on search console? Invalid value in field "itemtype"
I'm getting the same structured data error on search console form most of my websites, Invalid value in field "itemtype" I take off all the structured data but still having this problem, according to Search console is a syntax problem but I can't find what is causing this. Any guess, suggestion or solution for this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexanders0 -
How to structure links on a "Card" for maximum crawler-friendliness
My question is how to best structure the links on a "Card" while maintaining usability for touchscreens. I've attached a simple wireframe, but the "card" is a format you see a lot now on the web: it's about a "topic" and contains an image for the topic and some text. When you click the card it links to a page about the "topic". My question is how to best structure the card's html so google can most easily read it. I have two options: a) Make the elements of the card 2 separate links, one for the image and one for the text. Google would read this as follows. //image
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jcgoodrich
[](/target URL) //text
<a href=' target="" url'="">Topic</a href='> b) Make the entire "Card" a link which would cause Google to read it as follows: <a></a> <a>Bunch of div elements that includes anchor text and alt-image attributes above along with a fair amount of additional text.</a> <a></a> Holding UX aside, which of these options is better purely from a Google crawling perspective? Does doing (b) confuse the bot about what the target page is about? If one is clearly better, is it a dramatic difference? Thanks! PwcPRZK0 -
Do image "lightbox" photo gallery links on a page count as links and dilute PageRank?
Hi everyone, On my site I have about 1,000 hotel listing pages, each which uses a lightbox photo gallery that displays 10-50 photos when you click on it. In the code, these photos are each surrounded with an "a href", as they rotate when you click on them. Going through my Moz analytics I see that these photos are being counted by Moz as internal links (they point to an image on the site), and Moz suggests that I reduce the number of links on these pages. I also just watched Matt Cutt's new video where he says to disregard the old "100 links max on a page" rule, yet also states that each link does divide your PageRank. Do you think that this applies to links in an image gallery? We could just switch to another viewer that doesn't use "a href" if we think this is really an issue. Is it worth the bother? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomNYC0 -
How use Rel="canonical" for our Website
How is the best way to use Rel="canonical" for our website www.ofertasdeemail.com.br, for we can say goodbye for duplicated pages? I appreciate for every help. I also hope to contribute to the SEOmoz community. Sincerely,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZZNINTERNETMEDIAGROUP
Amador Goncalves0 -
RSS "fresh" content with static page
Hi SEOmoz members, Currently I am researching my competitor and noticed something what i dont really understand. They have hundreds of static pages that dont change, the content is already the same for over 6 months. Every time a customer orders a product they use their rss feed to publish: "Customer A just bought product 4" When i search in Google for product 4 in the last 24 hours, its always their with a new publishing date but the same old content. Is this a good SEO tactic to implant in my own site?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MennoO0 -
What metrics is Google looking for to classify a websites as a "Store" or "Brand"
Our company is both a store and brand as we sell manufacture direct. We are not included in Google's "Related Searches for widgets:" Picture attached as reference (we are not selling computers ... just an example) What is Google looking for to pull these brands and stores? hXSLn.gif
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tatermarketing0 -
Questions regarding Google's "improved url handling parameters"
Google recently posted about improving url handling parameters http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html I have a couple questions: Is it better to canonicalize urls or use parameter handling? Will Google inform us if it finds a parameter issue? Or, should we have a prepare a list of parameters that should be addressed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0