Canonical url question
-
i just search seomoz tooll
it say duplicate content for
and
should i use canonical url for this ?
is yes then
is this right ?
-
Yeah, I think canonical is fine for "index.php" variants. One important addition, though. Check your internal link structure. Many sites link to "index.php" via their "Home" link or logo. I'd suggest changing that to an absolute URL or just "/". That way, you're not creating the non-canonical version in the first place.
-
thats why i said the bit about using non-www in htaccess too
-
no trailing slash where you've got say .php or .html at the end
-
I mean canonical is not a bad idea but my suggestion was to use 301 redirection from all different forms of domain URL to your prefered version so that all juice that you have on different URLs can transfer to the preferred version and at the same time visitors also redirect to the URL version you want....
-
-
In addition to those 301 rules stick this in your htacess file
DirectoryIndex index.php index.html site-down.php
it tells the browser and bots which page is the default for your folders and root.
Also ensure your non-www forward to www. using this code
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L] -
This is a great question. Yes, you should use a canonical tag. But, I would suggest that your canonical tag needs to be:
Notice the addition of the '/"
THe, I would also make sure that these URLs produce 301 status codes when going through your server:
This is very important so as not to fragment your link profile and also not to produce massive amounts (potentially) of duplicate content in Google and other search engines.
Hope that helps!
Dana
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
-
How To Shorten Long URLS
Hi I want to shorten some URLs, if possible, that Moz is reporting as too long. They are all the same page but different categories - the page advertises jobs but the client requires various links to types of jobs on the menu. So the menu will have: Job type 1
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ann64
Job type 2
Job Type 3 I'm getting the links by going to the page, clicking a dropdown to filter the Job type, then copying the resulting URL from the address bar. Bu these are really long & cumbersome. I presume if I used a URL shortener, this would count as redirects and alsonot be good for SEO. Any thoughts? Thanks
Ann0 -
HTTPS 301 Redirect Question
Hi, I've just migrated our previous site (siteA) to our new url (siteB) and I've setup 301 redirects from the old url (siteA) to the new (siteB). However, the old url operated on https and users who try to go to the old url with https (https://siteA.com) receive a message that the server cannot be reached, while the users who go to http://siteA.com are redirected to siteB. Is there a way to 301 redirect https traffic? Also, from an SEO perspective if the site and all the references on Google search are https://siteA.com does a 301 redirect of http pass the domain authority, etc. or is https required? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | opstart0 -
Canonical questions
Hi, We are working on a site that sells lots of variations of a certain type of product. (Car accessories) So lets say there are 5 products but each product will need a page for each car model so we will potentially have a lot of variations/pages. As there are a lot of car models, these pages will have pretty much the same content, apart from the heading and model details. So the structure will be something like this; Product 1 (landing page) Audi (model selection page)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davidmaxwell
---Audi A1 (Model detail page)
---Audi A2 (Model detail page)
---Audi A3 (Model detail page) BMW (model selection page)
---BMW 1 Series (Model detail page)
---BMW 3 Series (Model detail page) Product 2 (landing page) Audi (model selection page)
---Audi A1 (Model detail page)
---Audi A2 (Model detail page)
---Audi A3 (Model detail page) BMW (model selection page)
etc
etc The structure is like this as we will be targeting each landing page for AdWords campaigns. As all of these pages could look very similar to search engines, will simply setting up each with a canonical be enough? Is there anything else we should do to ensure Google doesn't penalise for duplicate page content? Any thoughts or suggestions most welcome.
Thanks!0 -
Safely change canonical URL many times
Hi, We are actually working on a new product information section for our network of websites (site A, B, C and D) where product landing pages allow to download information in pdf format and are active for downloads during a period of two months (active form for commercial reasons) with a unique URL (the case today). Here is a possible scenario for these product landing pages in the near future: Product is promoted in website A during 2 months (January to February) so canonical URL = A/page. Once expired, the product info. download form disappears. Customer decides to promote the same product in the same site A as well in site B from April to May so canonical URL will still be A/page. Canonical URL of B/page will point to A/page. Customer decides to relaunch his product promotion this time in site C from July to August so canonical URLs of pages A/page and B/page will now point to C/page as the latter will be the only product campaign active with a download form At the end of the year the customer does another campaign for the same product this time in website D so we will change the canonical URL of pages A/page, B/page and C/page to D/page as the latter will be the only product campaign active with a download form The obvious question here is: will this way of changing canonical URLs dynamically hurt the SEO of the section, pages, one particular website or the whole network ? Would it be better and safer to just keep the first canonical URL forever? A/page in this example Thanks so much for your input on this.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JulienLetellier0 -
Capitals in URLs
Hello Mozzers. I've just been looking at a site with capitals in the URL - capitals are used in the product descriptions, so you'll have a URL structure like this: www.company.com/directory1/Double-Beds-Luxury (such URLs do not work if I lower the case of the capitals). There are 50,000 such products on the site. Clearly one drawback is potential customers might type in, or link to, the lower case of the URL and get a "not found" result (though the urls are relatively long so not that likely I'm thinking). Are there any additional drawbacks with the use of capitals outlined here?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Question about copying content
Hi there, I have had a question from a retailer asking if they can take all our content i.e. blog articles, product pages etc, what is best practice here in getting SEO value out of this? Here a few ideas I was thinking of: I was thinking they put canonical tags on all pages where they have copied our content? They copy the content but leave all anchor text in place? Please let me know your thoughts. Kind Regards
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
Unique Ip Hosting Question
We have aged domains that have had unique ips for some time. Batch 1 average 2 years old and are in 1st to 5th place in their rankings. Batch 2 are 8 months old and not ranking at all. Will there be any issues associated with moving them all to a reseller account with a single ip address? In addition batch 1 that has good rankings with unique ips is there ever a possibility they will change our ips without notice or for any reason at all that will change and or fluctuate our rankings?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shandaman0 -
Architecture questions.
I have two architecture related questions. Fewer folders is better. For example, www.site.com/product should rank better than www.site.com/foldera/folderb/product, all else constant. However, to what extreme does it make sense to remove folders? With a small site of 100 or so pages, why not put all files in the main directory? You'd have to manually build the navigation versus tying navigation to folder structure, but would the benefit justify the additional effort on a small site? I see a lot of sites with expansive footer menus on the home page and sometimes on every page. I can see how that would help indexing and user experience by making every page a click or two apart. However, what does that do to the flow of link juice? Does Google degrade the value of internal footer links like they do external footer links? If Google does degrade internal footer links, then having a bunch of footer links would waste link juice by sending a large portion of juice through degraded links, wouldn't it? Thank you in advance, -Derek
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dvansant0