Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Splitting Page Authority with two URLs for the same page.
-
Hello guys,
My website is currently holding two different URLs for the same page and I am under the impression such set up is dividing my Page Authority and Link Juice.
We currently have the following page with both URLs below:
www.wbresearch.com/soldiertechnologyusa/home.aspx
www.wbresearch.com/soldiertechnologyusa/Analysing the page authority and backlinks I identified that we are splitting the amount of backlinks (links from sites, social media and therefore authority).
"/home.aspx"
PA: 67
Linking Root Domains: 52
Total Links: 272"/"
PA: 64
Linking Root Domains: 29
Total Links: 128I am under the impression that if the URLs were the same we would maximise our backlinks and therefore page authority.
My Question: How can I fix this? Should I have a 301 redirect from the page "/" to the "/home.aspx" therefore passing the authority and link juice of “/” directly to “/homes.aspx”?
Trying to gather thoughts and ideas on this, suggestions are much appreciated?
Thanks!
-
Great help.
Thanks both!
-
Hi Joao, yes a 301 redirect would be preferable to a canonical. A 301 is more "absolute" - it lets search engines know that they should ignore the redirected page. A canonical is more like a piece of advice for search engines.
Canonicals are useful if you don't have the development skills or resources to implement a 301, and they can also be used when it's not practical to add a 301 to lots of web pages.
In short - use a 301 if practical
-
I think it generally depends on the cause of the duplicate. If its system issue then you'll forever be creating 301s for your urls. In that case its best to avoid having to do the 301 and stick with canonical. With canonical are telling the search engine to only index one version of the url.
Both 301 and canonical have their uses but the choice should depend on the issue and what you are trying to achieve. Hope this helps?
Duke
-
Hi Duke and Alice,
Thank you for your both replies. Very helpful.
We currently do a rel="canonical" from the page "/" to the "/home.aspx", which should avoid the content duplication issue.
I have seen mix opinions on where to use rel="canonical" vs 301 redirect. Just found a Matt Cutts' video about that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA)
Alice - I take that it might be better to do a 301 redirect than a rel="canonical", as per the video. What do think? should I leave the rel-canonical or try to move to a 301?
Cheers guys!
-
Hi Joao, some good advice from Duke here. A 301 redirect will solve this duplicate problem and help to consolidate the authority. However it's worth investigating to see what caused the problem and whether it is a wider issue, in which case canonicals might be more appropriate. Good luck!
-
Hi Joao,
I think you probably need to establish if the those two urls came about due to a cms or system issue. I ask this because some cms system create duplicate/different urls for the same page and the good ones have a canonical set up to avoid duplicate content. If it is a system or cms issue then get a canonical set up. Use screeming frog to run a crawl to see if i picks up any duplicate urls. Currently, your homepage runs the risk of duplicate content penalty.
If its not a system wide issue, then set up a 301 redirect. Think of the home page that people will remember easily and can share on social media platforms without part of it being cut of due to length.
All the best
Duke
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
-
What happens when you replace a page with a new version that has the same URL?
a new page template was created the plan is to publish the new page (which has the same URL as before) to web and delete the old page that has the URL , will that have an SEO implications ?
Technical SEO | | lina_digital1 -
Japanese URL-structured sitemap (pages) not being indexed by Bing Webmaster Tools
Hello everyone, I am facing an issue with the sitemap submission feature in Bing Webmaster Tools for a Japanese language subdirectory domain project. Just to outline the key points: The website is based on a subdirectory URL ( example.com/ja/ ) The Japanese URLs (when pages are published in WordPress) are not being encoded. They are entered in pure Kanji. Google Webmaster Tools, for instance, has no issues reading and indexing the page's URLs in its sitemap submission area (all pages are being indexed). When it comes to Bing Webmaster Tools it's a different story, though. Basically, after the sitemap has been submitted ( example.com/ja/sitemap.xml ), it does report an error that it failed to download this part of the sitemap: "page-sitemap.xml" (basically the sitemap featuring all the sites pages). That means that no URLs have been submitted to Bing either. My apprehension is that Bing Webmaster Tools does not understand the Japanese URLs (or the Kanji for that matter). Therefore, I generally wonder what the correct way is to go on about this. When viewing the sitemap ( example.com/ja/page-sitemap.xml ) in a web browser, though, the Japanese URL's characters are already displayed as encoded. I am not sure if submitting the Kanji style URLs separately is a solution. In Bing Webmaster Tools this can only be done on the root domain level ( example.com ). However, surely there must be a way to make Bing's sitemap submission understand Japanese style sitemaps? Many thanks everyone for any advice!
Technical SEO | | Hermski0 -
Indexed pages
Just started a site audit and trying to determine the number of pages on a client site and whether there are more pages being indexed than actually exist. I've used four tools and got four very different answers... Google Search Console: 237 indexed pages Google search using site command: 468 results MOZ site crawl: 1013 unique URLs Screaming Frog: 183 page titles, 187 URIs (note this is a free licence, but should cut off at 500) Can anyone shed any light on why they differ so much? And where lies the truth?
Technical SEO | | muzzmoz1 -
Getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as duplicate pages and duplicate page titles can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what might I be missing?
I am getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as reporting both duplicate pages and duplicate page titles on crawl results, I can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what am I be missing? Has anyone else had a similar issue, how was it corrected?
Technical SEO | | tgwebmaster0 -
When creating parent and child pages should key words be repeated in url and page title?
We are in the direct mail advertising business: PrintLabelAndMail.com Example: Parent:
Technical SEO | | JimDirectMailCoach
Postcard Direct Mail Children:
Postcard Mailings
Postcard Design
Postcard Samples
Postcard Pricing
Postcard Advantages should "postcard" be repeated in the URL and Page Title? and in this example should each of the 5 children link back directly to the parent or would it be better to "daisy chain" them using each as parent for the next?0 -
Home Page .index.htm and .com Duplicate Page Content/Title
I have been whittling away at the duplicate content on my clients' sites, thanks to SEOmoz's pro report, and have been getting push back from the account manager at register.com (the site was built here and the owner doesn't want to move it). He says these are the exact same page and he can't access one to redirect to the other. Any suggestions? The SEOmoz report says there is duplicate content on both these urls: Durango Mountain Biking | Durango Mountain Resort - Cascade Village http://www.cascadevillagehotel.com/index.htm Durango Mountain Biking | Durango Mountain Resort - Cascade Village http://www.cascadevillagehotel.com/ Your help is greatly appreciated! Sheryl
Technical SEO | | TOMMarketingLtd.0 -
Two different canonical tags on one page
Due to an error, some of my pages now have two canonical tags on them. One is correct and the other goes to a nonsense URL (404 page). I know I should ideally remove the incorrect ones, but it's a big manual job. Are they doing any harm? Can I just leave them there and let Google figure it out? The correct ones are higher up in the code. Will this make a difference? Any help appreciated.
Technical SEO | | ShearingsGroup0 -
Handling 301s: Multiple pages to a single page (consolidation)
Been scouring the interwebs and haven't found much information on redirecting two serparate pages to a single new page. Here is what it boils down to: Let's say a website has two pages, both with good page authority of products that are becoming fazed out. The products, Widget A and Widget B, are still popular search terms, but they are being combined into ONE product, Widget C. While Widget A and Widget B STILL have plenty to do with Widget C, Widget C is now the new page, the main focus page, and the page you want everyone to see and Google to recognize. Now, do I 301 Widget A and Widget B pages to Widget C, ALTHOUGH Widgets A and B previously had nothing to do with one another? (Remember, we want to try and keep some of that authority the two page have had.) OR do we keep Widget A and Widget B pages "alive", take them off the main navigation, and then put a "disclaimer" on the pages announcing they are now part of Widget C and link to Widget C? OR Should Widgets A and B page be canonicalized to Widget C? Again, keep in mind, widgets A and B previously were not similar, but NOW they are and result in Widget C. (If you are confused, we can provide a REAL work example of what we are talkinga about, but decided to not be specific to our industry for this.) Appreciate any and all thoughts on this.
Technical SEO | | JU19850