301 or canonical for multiple homepage versions?
-
I used 301 redirects to point several versions of the homepage to www.site.com. i was just rereading moz's beginners guide to seo, and it uses that scenario as an example for rel canonical, not 301 redirects. Which is better? My understanding is that 301s remove all doubt of getting links to the wrong version and diluting link equity.
-
Looks like you found the solution below. Nice work!
-
In case this is helpful to anyone else reading this post, here is the code I am now using in the .htaccess, which seems to have eradicated the double redirect (thanks to help from phranque and lucy24 at webmasterworld):
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /([^/.]+/)*(index.html|default.asp)\ HTTP/
RewriteRule ^(([^/.]+/)*)(index|default) http://www.site.com/$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^(www.site.com)?$ [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.site.com/$1 [R=301,L]
-
Cyrus - Thanks. A familiar face - I've seen it attached to many an article that I've read;)
While I have you here, maybe you can answer another question related to the situation that has me slightly nervous:
I've read warnings about creating a loop with a 301 redirect - and I keep being pointed to default.asp in Open Site Explorer (with the message that the url I entered - www.site.com- redirects to /default.asp) but any redirect checkers I've used don't show that. Would it be obvious if I didn't implement it correctly? It looks fine in the browser.
Would a rel canonical tag in addition to a 301 redirect be a good idea?
-
Hi Kimberly,
The rel="canonical" is a good option when you can't 301 a page. If you can 301 a page, such as /index.html or some other duplicate version, it's usually a better way to go. As you said, it removes all doubt about where to send visitors and link equity.
Both rel canonicals and 301s pass about the same amount of link equity (thought to be around 85%) so it's safe to use either.
Canonical tags are usually best when you have lots of parameters needed to render the page, like homepage?color=red&length=long&manu=apple. In this case it wouldn't make much sense to 301, and the rel canonical is easier to implement.
Hope this helps. Best of luck with your SEO.
-
Glad that was useful, Kimberly. Many times, folks just want a "when this happens, do that" kind of response, but usually in SEO there so many "it depends" aspects to an issue that it's vastly more useful to understand the Why, so you can work out the solution to the specific issue yourself. Sounds like you're that kind of person too.
That said - this discussion seems to be going round and round on you. If you want to PM me your site address, I can get a handle on your exact situation and try to explain exactly what's happening. I have my suspicions, but don't want to confuse the issue further with speculation.
Paul
-
Could the code I used explain why Open Site Explorer won't let me view link data for www.site.com, but shows me www.site.com/default.asp instead? And within that data it shows an incoming link from www.site.com as a 301 redirect. But when I check it in a browser or redirect checker, it shows www.site.com as the final destination. My head hurts.
Edit: (This is what OSE says "The URL you've entered redirects to another URL. We're showing results for www.site.com/default.asp since it is likely to have more accurate link metrics. See data for www.site.com instead?")
-
I don't have access to the control panel and the person who does never did the redirect when I asked so i just did it myself with .htaccess. So did you say I should change it to your code and that will handle everything, including the double redirect?
(Edited out a question that I figured out the answer to.)
-
So you are saying I should use the following exact code instead of the code I have:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301,L]And that will take care of the default.asp and index.html as well? And it won't redirect to the www in between, thus creating 2 redirects, correct?
If you don't mind explaining, what's the working difference between the first code I tried (below) and the above code that makes the above code work?
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www..* [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L] -
Yes that's classic asp
what sort of server is it on windows?
What sort of webserver IIS? if so what version, if it is 7 or greater it is very easy to do your redirects if you have access to the controlpanel
-
I didn't build the site, nor do I have anything to do with the hosting, but I do have FTP access. I can't remember how or why but I came to the conclusion that it's ASP Classic. Is there a quick way for me to double check? All the files end in .asp if that helps.
-
you are correct, it want do the index.html or default.asp
but this rule will solve all your domain problems, not the "!" mean not, so if not the desired domain, then redirect to the desired domain not matter what the domain is. this will fix non www, or any other secondary domain you may have such as oldDomain.com or mergedSite.com
Options +FollowSymLinks RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301,L]but if you have a page called default.asp. your site is a classic ASP site, ASP is a Microsoft technology and would be on a Microsoft web server IIS. if so 301 redirects are very easy to do.
Is your site ASP.is it on a Microsoft IIS server?
-
I would like to politely add (and first say that I do appreciate anyone's attempt at a helpful response) that it's a very delicate matter to be giving answers without 100% certainty or valid first-hand experience. At least we as a community should be careful to include somewhat of a disclaimer should our answers be anything less than certain. I, for one, do not want to steer anyone down a dangerous path. I do understand it's my responsibility to gauge the accuracy of an answer before I implement it. Think of the potential consequences to someone else if they implement bad/incorrect advice on a site - ouch!
-
Thank you Paul! Knowing the WHY behind something always solidifies my understanding of a concept. It does make me wonder why the cheat sheet linked by Sangeetac and Moz's Beginner's Guide to SEO both use that scenario as an example for a 301 redirect - it certainly adds to the confusion.
Alan - while we are on the subject...here is the code I used for the 301 redirect, which was my first ever using .htaccess. The problem is it redirects twice from certain starting points: first from site.com/default.asp to www.site.com/default.asp then to www.site.com/.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} /index.html? [NC]
RewriteRule ^(./)?index.html?$ /$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} /default.asp? [NC]
RewriteRule ^(./)?default.asp?$ /$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www..* [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]Initially I tried this (which I think is what you are suggesting?), but if I remember correctly, it wasn't taking care of default.asp or index.html (don't quote me on that):
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www..* [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]
Thanks for helping me do things the right way!
-
Agree with Paul here.
A 301 is a directive to the crawler, while a canonical tag is only a hint and is not always followed. Bing for one will ignore canonical tags if it believes they are misused.
as for the mention of "multiple 301 redirect" .
You do not need to have a 301 redirect for every url, just follow the logic
if HTTP_Host is not myPreferredDomain then redirect to myPreferredDomain -
Sorry, I have to categorically disagree with Sangeetac here. Kimberley, your understanding is entirely correct.
There's so much misinformation and misunderstanding about canonicalization, and there doesn't really need to be.
The rel canonical tag is ONLY to be used when there is a justifiable reason why the multiple duplicate pages in question should actually be reachable via different URLs. Unless such a reason exists, you should ALWAYS use a 301 redirect.
Put another way, duplicate page issues should ALWAYS be resolved using 301 redirects unless doing so would harm the user experience.
In the case of multiple versions of a home page, there is absolutely NO BENEFIT to the user to be able to reach that page via multiple different URLs. (In fact the multiple URLs could be confusing.) Therefore, the 301 redirect should be used to FORCE the user (and search engine) to the single version the site owner has decided should be the primary URL. Again, the other URLs are pointless, so the user should be blocked from ever being able to reach them. Using the 301 in this case has the added benefit of explicitly and automatically telling the search engines that all the redirected URLs for that page should be dropped from the index as they are non-functional. (And that's exactly what happened, Kimberley, as you saw default.asp and index.htm disappear from the index.)
The ONLY time you'd use a rel canonical tag in this case, instead of a 301 redirect, is if for some reason the site owner doesn't have sufficient access to the sever files to be able to implement a 301 redirect properly. In that case, a rel canonical tag can be used as a "better than nothing" solution.
The classic example of when to use a rel canonical tag is in the case of a page that lists a large number of products. That default (and therefore canonical version) version of the page may very well list the products in the order they were added to inventory. There may well be additional versions of the page, each at a different URL (often using query parameters, for example) which lists exactly the same content, but one page sorted by size, another version sorted by colour, yet another sorted by price.
Obviously in this case, 301-redirecting those additional dupe pages to the original page would be harmful to the user experience, because the user would never be able to access the content sorted the way they want to see it. So each duplicate version of the page has value to the user and therefore MUST remain available to the user, and therefore to the search engine.
In this case, the site owner adds a rel canonical tag to each of the dupe pages pointing to the primary (canonical) version, to make it clear to the search engine that the dupe pages are intentional secondary variations that should pass all their ranking value back to the primary page. But NOTE! Google themselves say they consider the rel canonical tag as a suggestion only, and will ignore it if they deem it incorrect or manipulative. So it is NOT NEARLY as strong an indicator as a 301 redirect which forces both user and search engine into the desired behaviour.
Sorry if that got a little long-winded, but once we get clear on the basic purpose of 301 redirects vs rel canonical tags, it becomes much more straightforward which to use when. The confusion usually stems from folks trying to justify using canonical tags for purposes for which they were never designed. They are not a panacea or a catch-all for fixing site architecture mistakes.
Hope that clears, rather than muddies the waters?
Paul
-
And I just did a site operator search fror default.asp and index.htm and they are no longer in the index, though I never removed them after the 301 redirect. So I'm assuming Google did the math as expected.
-
Please excuse the typos - my iPad does not like complying
-
Thanks for the link to that cheat sheet, I had forgotten about that! I have to say, the contradictory information I find and receive regarding SEO can make learning feel counterproductive half the time. Last time I asked this question, I was told 301 redirects were the correct plan of action. Are they equally good so long as I remove the others from the index? I am still seeing default.asp in some report
-
if you have several versions of homepage, it is good to use rel='canonical' instead of 301. If you will use multiple 301 redirect then you have to make sure to remove these urls from google or bing webmaster's url removal tool. For more info about canonical tag, visit Moz's Developer cheat sheet.
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
-
Duplicate Content & Rel Canonical Tag not working
I'm really questioning the legitimacy of the duplicate content flags with moz. I'm building a website that sells home decor products and a lot of the pages are similar in structure (As would be expected with a store that sells thousands of individual products). It seems a little overkill to me to flag the following pages as duplicate content. They have different urls, titles, h1, h2, and h3 tages, different meta tags, etc. Right now, it's saying that the following have duplicate page content: http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com
Moz Pro | | cp_web
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/pillows/christmas-vacation-embroidered-pillow
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/donna-sharp/throws/camo-bear-throw
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/teapots/wonderland-teapot
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/rag-rugs/cambridge-rug-36x60
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/donna-sharp/lodge-quilts/king%2C-woodland
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/rag-rugs/redmon-rag-rug-36x60
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/valances/hearthside-valance-72x14
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/valances/hearthside-valance-72x14
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/donna-sharp/lodge-quilts/king,-woodland
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/teapots/wonderland-teapot
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/donna-sharp/throws/camo-bear-throw
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/accessories/home-place-tumbler
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/donna-sharp/lodge-quilts/king,-woodland
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/rag-rugs/cambridge-rug-36x60
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/pillows/christmas-vacation-embroidered-pillow
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/donna-sharp/lodge-quilts/king%2C-woodland?pi=18
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/donna-sharp/lodge-quilts/king%2C-woodland
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/accessories/home-place-tumbler
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/park-designs/rag-rugs/redmon-rag-rug-36x6 Any ideas? Also, it seems like it's not honoring the rel-canonical tag. It keeps saying that pages with a rel canonical tag are duplicates when some of the urls that it's flagging shouldn't even be indexed because of the canonical tag. The "pi" in the query string should not be indexed! http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=3
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=6
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=7
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=6
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=10
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=8
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=8
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=7
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=7
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=1
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=8
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=5
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=10
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=3
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=5
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=4
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=9
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-%26-quilts/shams/standard-shams
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=1
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=6
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=1
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=5
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=2
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=9
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=4
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=3
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-%26-quilts/shams/standard-shams
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-%26-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=9
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=10
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?pi=18&page=2
http://countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=2
http://www.countryporchhomedecor.com/bedding-&-quilts/shams/standard-shams?page=40 -
Help with 301 redirects.
Hi, I would like to say thank you in advance to all who help me with my question. MOZ crawl test showed duplicate content for a site that i just finished. I have www.site.com, site.com and site.index.html( all are the home page) So i have decided to 301 redirect all pages to site.com. And I also learned that when you do a 301 redirect all link juice is passed to the page that i redirect to. Here is my question: If someone links to my site using www.site.com instead of site.com in the future, will the 301 redirect still pass the pr to the page?( site.com). Or it only does, at the time of redirect and not in the future. I know this might be a stupid question but i am really new to this and couldn't find an answer for that. Thanks guys
Moz Pro | | Davit19850 -
My homepage is not getting indexed by google for some reason
My homepage http://www.truebluelifeinsurance.com is not indexed by google. The rest of my site is indexed. The hompage is indexed by bing. I looked in the webmaster tools and there is no indication why. I believe the issue started when I did a site re-design in August. Any ideas?
Moz Pro | | Brian_Greenberg0 -
A 301 redirect to a page with a rel canonical to a page with a 301 question...
MOZ registers thousands of DC and Duplicate titles on a Drupal site which has a little strange setup. Example: www.1234.com/en-us 301 redirects to www.realsite.com/en-us which has a rel canonical to www.1234.com which 301 redirects to www.realsite.com. If you're still with me I thank you.
Moz Pro | | Crunchii
My question is since MOZ registers errors, if indeed the rel canonical isn't recognized due to a 301 redirect?0 -
Rel Canonical Question
Hi all. I think I'm a bit confused. When I check my crawl diagnostics its listing lots of warnings under the heading rel-canonical. I am not sure why, since virtually all my pages have the link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" tag. I use it because there are a lot of possible extensions that can appear on the pages as it is an eCommerce site. Why would seomoz list this as a warning? Thanks Ken
Moz Pro | | CandymanKen0 -
301 Permanently Moved Redirect
After completing a crawl of my website: www.getyourphotosonchavas.com I noticed that all of the pages had a 301 Redirect? There is this huge amount of what appears to be corrupted
Moz Pro | | rdominey
data for each of these pages: Please see the attached Crawl report and a test ran from a crawl spider. It looks like each page is a 301 redirect to itself? Can anyone please tell me what all this means? 301-Redirect-crawl.jpg 301-Redirects.jpg0 -
We were unable to grade that page. We received a response code of 301\. URL content not parseable
I am using seomoz webapp tool for my SEO on my site. I have run into this issue. Please see the attached file as it has the screen scrape of the error. I am running an on page scan from seomoz for the following url: http://www.racquetsource.com/squash-racquets-s/95.htm When I run the scan I receive the following error: We were unable to grade that page. We received a response code of 301. URL content not parseable. This page had worked previously. I have tried to verify my 301 redirects and am unable to resolve this error. I can perform other on page scans and they work fine. Is this a known problem with this tool? I have verified ensuring I don't have it defined. Any help would be appreciated.
Moz Pro | | GeoffBatterham0