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.
Duplicate Content for index.html
-
In the Crawl Diagnostics Summary, it says that I have two pages with duplicate content which are:
I read in a Dream Weaver tutorial that you should name your home page "index.html" and then you can let www.mywebsite.com automatically direct the user to index.html. Is this a bug in SEOMoz's crawler or is it a real problem with my site?
Thank you,
Dan
-
The code should definitely go into the websites root directory's .htaccess, however .htaccess can be weird, a few days ago I ran into a similar issue with a client's website, and I was able to remedy the issue with a variation of the code.
index Redirect RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /([^/]+/)index.(php|html|htm|asp)\ HTTP/ RewriteRule ^(([^/]+/))index.(php|html|htm|asp)$ http://yoursite.com/$1 [R=301,L]
If you give me the URL for the site I will take a look at it and let you know what would be feasible.
-
Hi Daniel, can you share with us the URL of your site? We can take a look at it and give you a more precise answer that way. Thanks!
-
I eventually figured out that your method was a 301 redirect and I definitely broke my site trying to use the code you posted. .. haha. Its ok though. I just removed the code and it went back to normal. At first, I was editing the .htaccess file in the public_html folder which wasnt working. Then I tried the root folder for the site (I created the .htaccess file since it did not exist.) Neither of those worked. (I am using Bluehost so I do not think that I have root access and I am not sure if it is a Linux server or not.)
If there is an easy way to explain what I am doing wrong, please do so. Otherwise, I will use canonical.
Thanks for everything!
-
@Dan
Thanks for your reply. It seems like there are lots of different ways to solve this problem. I just watched this video on Matt Cutt's blog where he discusses his preference for 301 redirects over rel canonical tag.
Where would you say your solution fits in?
sorry about the delay of this response, i didn't realize the that you were asking me a question right away. When placing the code I provided in my previous answer this will cause a 301 perminant redirect to the original URL. That's actually what the
[R=301,L]
portion of the code is stating (R) redirect (301) status is referring to. After reviewing the Matt Cutts video, I realize that I should have asked you if you were operating on a Linux server that you had root access to. We actually utilize both redirects and canonical tags since it was recommended by the on-page optimization reports. Heck Google uses them, I would assume because it's easier for the user to be referred to a single page URL. Obviously though if you don't have server header access, and are not familiar with .htaccess (you can accidentally break your site) then the canonical solution is appropriate
-
Josh,
Thanks for your reply. It seems like there are lots of different ways to solve this problem. I just watched this video on Matt Cutt's blog where he discusses his preference for 301 redirects over rel canonical tag.
Where would you say your solution fits in?
Thanks,
Dan -
use the link rel tag for all my homepages for the http://www.yoursite.com
-
Odd enough I just recently answered this question. The SEOmoz crawler is correct, because without a redirect you will be able to access both versions of the page in your browser.
To resolve this issue simply rewrite the index.html to the root url by placing the following code into your .htaccess file into your root directory.
Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine on
Index Rewrite RewriteRule ^index.(htm|html|php) http://www.yoursite.com/ [R=301,L] RewriteRule ^(.*)/index.(htm|html|php) http://www.yoursite.com/$1/ [R=301,L]
You can also do the same with the index file in any subdirectories that you might create, by simply placing a .htaccess into those sub directories and using variations of the above code. This is how you create nice tight URLs without the duplicate content issue that look like - http://www.semclix.com/design/business/
-
It is a problem which you need to fix. You need to canonicalize your pages.
Those are all various URLs which most likely lead to the same web page. I say "most likely" because these URLs can actually lead to different pages.
You need to tell crawlers and search engines how you organize your site. There are several ways to achieve canonicalization. The method I prefer is to add the following line of code to each page:
The URL provided should be the preferred URL for your page.
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 changing content and design of the website gonna affect my all the backlinks i have made till now
i have been working on my link profile for a month now, after learning about 5 step moz methodology i have decided that i would like to change all of the content of my site and taylor it to what my customers need, am i gonna loose all the domain authority if make changes? if it gonna affect, hows that gonna come out
Web Design | | calvinkj0 -
Any risks involved in removing a sub-domain from search index or completely taking down? Ranking impact?
Hi all, One of our sub-domains has thousands of indexed pages but traffic is very less and irrelevant. There are links between this sub-domain to other sub domains of ours. We are planning to take this subdomain completely. What happens if so? Google responds for this with a ranking change? Thanks
Web Design | | vtmoz0 -
How to prevent development website subdomain from being indexed?
Hello awesome MOZ Community! Our development team uses a sub-domain "dev.example.com" for our SEO clients' websites. This allows changes to be made to the dev site (U/X changes, forms testing, etc.) for client approval and testing. An embarrassing discovery was made. Naturally, when you run a "site:example.com" the "dev.example.com" is being indexed. We don't want our clients websites to get penalized or lose killer SERPs because of duplicate content. The solution that is being implemented is to edit the robots.txt file and block the dev site from being indexed by search engines. My questions is, does anyone in the MOZ Community disagree with this solution? Can you recommend another solution? Would you advise against using the sub-domain "dev." for live and ongoing development websites? Thanks!
Web Design | | SproutDigital0 -
Hiding content until user scrolls - Will Google penalize me?
I've used: "opacity:0;" to hide sections of my content, which are triggered to show (using Javascript) once the user scrolls over these sections. I remember reading a while back that Google essentially ignores content which is hidden from your page (it mentioned they don't index it, so it's close to impossible to rank for it). Is this still the case? Thanks, Sam
Web Design | | Sam.at.Moz0 -
Https pages indexed but all web pages are http - please can you offer some help?
Dear Moz Community, Please could you see what you think and offer some definite steps or advice.. I contacted the host provider and his initial thought was that WordPress was causing the https problem ?: eg when an https version of a page is called, things like videos and media don't always show up. A SSL certificate that is attached to a website, can allow pages to load over https. The host said that there is no active configured SSL it's just waiting as part of the hosting package just in case, but I found that the SSL certificate is still showing up during a crawl.It's important to eliminate the https problem before external backlinks link to any of the unwanted https pages that are currently indexed. Luckily I haven't started any intense backlinking work yet, and any links I have posted in search land have all been http version.I checked a few more url's to see if it’s necessary to create a permanent redirect from https to http. For example, I tried requesting domain.co.uk using the https:// and the https:// page loaded instead of redirecting automatically to http prefix version. I know that if I am automatically redirected to the http:// version of the page, then that is the way it should be. Search engines and visitors will stay on the http version of the site and not get lost anywhere in https. This also helps to eliminate duplicate content and to preserve link juice. What are your thoughts regarding that?As I understand it, most server configurations should redirect by default when https isn’t configured, and from my experience I’ve seen cases where pages requested via https return the default server page, a 404 error, or duplicate content. So I'm confused as to where to take this.One suggestion would be to disable all https since there is no need to have any traces to SSL when the site is even crawled ?. I don't want to enable https in the htaccess only to then create a https to http rewrite rule; https shouldn't even be a crawlable function of the site at all.RewriteEngine OnRewriteCond %{HTTPS} offor to disable the SSL completely for now until it becomes a necessity for the website.I would really welcome your thoughts as I'm really stuck as to what to do for the best, short term and long term.Kind Regards
Web Design | | SEOguy10 -
Is it cloaking/hiding text if textual content is no longer accessible for mobile visitors on responsive webpages?
My company is implementing a responsive design for our website to better serve our mobile customers. However, when I reviewed the wireframes of the work our development company is doing, it became clear to me that, for many of our pages, large parts of the textual content on the page, and most of our sidebar links, would no longer be accessible to a visitor using a mobile device. The content will still be indexable, but hidden from users using media queries. There would be no access point for a user to view much of the content on the page that's making it rank. This is not my understanding of best practices around responsive design. My interpretation of Google's guidelines on responsive design is that all of the content is served to both users and search engines, but displayed in a more accessible way to a user depending on their mobile device. For example, Wikipedia pages have introductory content, but hide most of the detailed info in tabs. All of the information is still there and accessible to a user...but you don't have to scroll through as much to get to what you want. To me, what our development company is proposing fits the definition of cloaking and/or hiding text and links - we'd be making available different content to search engines than users, and it seems to me that there's considerable risk to their interpretation of responsive design. I'm wondering what other people in the Moz community think about this - and whether anyone out there has any experience to share about inaccessable content on responsive webpages, and the SEO impact of this. Thank you!
Web Design | | mmewdell0 -
Is it bad to have /index.php at the end of a uri?
Is it bad for SEO if traffic is directed to "http://www.example.com/someuri/index.php" instead of "http://www.example.com/someuri/" and would it be works setting up a redirect rule at htaccess level?
Web Design | | NoisyLittleMonkey1 -
URLs with Hashtags - Does Google Index Them?
Hi there, I have a potential issue with a site whereby all pages are dynamically populated using Javascript. Thus, an example of an URL on their site would be www.example.com/#!/category/product. I have read lots of conflicting information on the web - some says Google will ignore everything after the hashtag; other people say that Google will now index everything after the hashtag. Does anybody have any conclusive information about this? Any links to Google or Matt Cutts as confirmation would be brilliant. P.S. I am aware about the potential issue of duplicate content, but I can assure you that has been dealt with. I am only concerned about whether Google will index full URLs that contain hashtags. Thanks all! Mark
Web Design | | markadoi840