How do fix twin home pages
-
Search engine analysis is indicating that my site has twin home pages (www.mysite.com and http://mysite.com).
The error message I'm getting is: "your website resides at both www.mysite.com and mysite.com.
My uploaded index page is a .htm page (not .html). I don't know if that matters.
Can someone explain how this happened and what I can do to fix it?
Thanks!
-
Hi FinalFrontier,
I agree with setting up a 301 redirect to a single version. I also recommend doing the following:
- Set up canonical URLs to your desired version
- Ensure that your XML sitemaps use your desired version
- Add both www and non-www to Google Webmaster Tools and select one as the URL you'd like displayed in search results
Best of luck!
Chris
-
If you look at the redirect code the webhost provided in their instructions, I notiched there is not a [NC] at the end of the Rewrite Cond line. I'm not sure if that [NC] is necessary or not.
Other than that and the possible time-lag you speak of, I'm at a loss.
-
It could just be a time-lag in our data (and that wouldn't shock me), but run a header checker and make sure the 301 is working properly. For example, try this:
-
Well, this isn't making any sense.
I made the following change to my .htaccess file - followed the instructions given my my web host:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mysite.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.mysite.com/$1 [R=301,L]
Then I ran another seoMoz root crawl a couple hours later and it still said I had the same errors on my home page (duplicate home page content and titles).
I just checked my .htaccess file again and it did save those 301 redirect changes. So why am I still getting duplicate page errors? thx.
-
Yeah, it sounds like you're not currently having major issues. I think it's good to prevent these issues (and duplicates are a real concern), but you can ease into this one, I strongly suspect.
-
Thanks for your post.
Google is indexing all my www pages (including www.mysite.com), but (I guess this is good news?) no documents show up for the:
site:mysite.com -url:www
in Google.
-
Since this issue can occur site-wide, I do tend to agree with Anton that 301-redirects are a better solution for this particular problem (although canonical tags will work, if that's your only feasible option). It is important, as implied in the comments, to make sure hat your internal links are consistent and you aren't using both versions in your site (although, with "www" vs. non-www, that's pretty rare).
Practically, it depends a lot on the size of your site, whether you have links to both versions, and whether Google has indexed both version. This is a problem in theory, but it may not currently be a problem on your site. You can check the indexed pages of both the root domain and www subdomain separately in Google with these commands:
site:mysite.com inurl:www
site:mysite.com -inurl:www
(the first pulls up anything with "www", and the second only pages without it).
If you're seeing both in play, then sorting out how to do the 301-redirects is a good bet. If you're not, then it's still a solid preventive measure, but you don't need to panic.
-
It can have a pretty major impact on search rankings. Basically what's happening is you have two identical pages for every intended page on your site. So it creates duplicate content issues.
So for example...
Someone finds something on your site that they like at www.yoursite.com/example/ and links to it from their site or shares it on Twitter, which increases the ranking power for that page.
Another person finds the same content at yoursite.com/example/ and links to it as well.
Instead of consolidating all the benefits of links to your site onto a single page, you're basically reducing your ranking potential by 50%.
-
How big of an issue is this for search engines? I'm indexed in Bing, Google, Yahoo.
I'm curious as to how big (or small) an impact this really has on a website.
thx.
-
Hi Final Frontier,
Most hosting providers will likely add this to your .htaccess file for you if you contact technical support. I know HostGator will happily provide that kind of help. If not, I'd be glad to add the lines if you'll download the file and email it to me.
-
Thanks but I'm more confused now than ever and I don't know how to change a .htaccess file, so I don't want to turn this into a DYI project and screw things up even more. I get the gist of what the problem is.
All my internal pages link back to www.mysite.com and to www.mysite.com/pages.htm throughout the site.
However, I noticed that for a img src for a facebook page (external link in my site), I am mistakenly linking that to http://mysite.com/facebook (no www). So I'll at least fix that to include www so there's consistency. Not sure if that's related to the problem - there are not other pages I've seen that link to http://mysite.com instead of www.mysite.com.
I've learned a lot here, but this is one technical thing I don't want to do myself and make things worse.
-
From: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not
There is usually a better solution
The canonical tag is not a replacement for a solid site architecture that doesn’t create duplicate content in the first place. There is almost always a superior solution to the canonical tag from a pure SEO best practice perspective.
Lets go through some of the URL examples I provided above, this time we'll talk about how to fix themwithout the canonical tag.
Example 1: http://www.example.com/quality-wrenches.htm
This is a duplicate version because our example website resolves with both the www version and the non-www version. If the canonical tag was used to pull the www version out of the index (keeping the non-www version as the canonical one) both versions would still resolve in the browser. With both versions still resolving, both versions can still continue to generate links.
A canonical tag, as with a 301 redirect, does not pass all of the link value from one page to another. It passes most of it, but not all. We estimate that the link value loss with either of these solutions is 1-10%. In this way, a 301 redirect and a canonical tag are the same.
I'd recommend a 301 redirect instead of a canonical tag.
Why, you ask? A 301 redirect takes the link value loss hit once. Once a 301 is in place, a user never lands on the duplicate URL version. They are redirected to the canonical version. If they decide to link to the page, they are going to provide that link to the canonical version. No link love lost. Compare that to the canonical tag solution which keeps both URLs resolving and perpetuates the link value loss.
From Rand's Article: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps
- Whereas a 301 redirect re-points all traffic (bots and human visitors), the Canonical URL tag is just for engines, meaning you can still separately track visitors to the unique URL versions.
- A 301 is a much stronger signal that multiple pages have a single, canonical source. While the engines are certainly planning to support this new tag and trust the intent of site owners, there will be limitations. Content analysis and other algorithmic metrics will be applied to ensure that a site owner hasn't mistakenly or manipulatively applied the tag, and we certainly expect to see mistaken use of the tag, resulting in the engines maintaining those separate URLs in their indices (meaning site owners would experience the same problems noted below).
- 301s carry cross-domain functionality, meaning you can redirect a page at domain1.com to domain2.com and carry over those search engine metrics. This is NOT THE CASE with the Canonical URL tag, which operates exclusively on a single root domain (it will carry over across subfolders and subdomains).
Rel Canonical is a great tool, but I have to disagree here. www.mysite.com is a sub-domain of mysite.com. Adding rel canonical tags to every page on the site would only send a signal to search engines specifying the preferred content, but adding a 301 redirect to the root domain one time will send all traffic, robots, and link juice to the preferred domain on a permanent basis.
-
Hi!
An easier way to fix the problem is by Canonical tags (if you´re not familiar with htaccess or server side scripts).
You find Rand Fishkins amazing article about it here:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemapsGood luck!
-
Hi FinalFrontier,
To fix this, you'll just need to choose which version of the domain you'd like to use and then implement a 301 redirect from the domain you don't want displayed to the preferred domain.
My personal choice is the "naked domain" (no "www"). Technically speaking, www.mysite.com is a subdomain of mysite.com and you'll notice that almost every major brand advertises their site without the "www".
When's the last time you saw an Apple commercial trying to convince you to go to www.apple.com? Seen www.eharmony.com anywhere lately?
The choice however is up to you... the key thing is make the decision and when you link to your site from another location stick with one or the other.
To implement the 301 redirect, the most common method is to edit the .htaccess file in the root directory of your site. Also, many hosting control panels (like cPanel) have this functionality built in where it can simply be activated by choosing the appropriate option in your server's configuration.
For www to non-www simply add this to your .htaccess file (replace mysite.com with your own domain)
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.mysite.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://mysite.com/$1 [L,R=301]
For the opposite (non-www to www) add this:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mysite.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.mysite.com/$1 [L,R=301]
Hope this helps!
Anthony
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
-
Paginated pages are being indexed?
I have lots of paginated pages which are being indexed. Should I add the noindex tag to page 2 onwards? The pages currently have previous and next tags in place. Page one also has a self-referencing canonical.
Technical SEO | | WTH0 -
Home has DA 50 but Subpages have Page Authority of 1
Hello, we already asked this, but there was no answer. We would be happy for any information. How could it be, that our subpages all have a PA 1 if the home got DA 50? technical specialities: Megamenue opens on click only Category pages dont exist (home/i-do-not-exist-as-page-category/PA-1-subpage) All subpages have a high amount of links to ressources (over 200) subpages are crawled and online for some time what would be the most obvious cause for the low PA? Would the external link profile be the main reason? thanks in advance. I would be happy to answer your questions
Technical SEO | | brainfruit0 -
Why are crawlers not picking up these pages?
Hi there, I've been asked to audit a new subdomain for a travel company. It's all a bit messy, so it's going to take some time to remedy. However, one thing I couldn't understand was the low number of pages appearing in certain crawlers. The subdomain has many pages. A homepage, category pages then product pages. Unfortunately, tools like Screaming Frog and xml-sitemaps.com are only picking up 19 pages and I can't figure out why. Google has so far indexed around 90 pages - this is by no means all of them, but that's probably because of the new domain and lack of sitemap etc. After looking at the crawl results, only the homepage and category (continent pages) are showing. So all the product pages are not. for example, tours.statravel.co.uk/trip/Amsterdam_Kings_Day_(Start_London_end_London)-COCCKDM11 is not appearing in the crawl results. After reviewing the source code, I can't see anything that would prevent this page being crawled. Am I missing something? At the moment, the crawl should be picking up around 400+ product pages, but it's not picking up any. Thanks
Technical SEO | | PeaSoupDigital0 -
Website SEO Product Pages - Condense Product Pages
We are managing a website that has seen consistently dropping rankings over the last 2 years (http://www.independence-bunting.com/). Our long term strategy has been purely content-based and is of high quality, but isn’t seeing the desired results. It is an ecommerce site that has a lot of pages, most of which are category or product pages. Many of the product pages have duplicate or thin content, which we currently see as one of the primary reasons for the ranking drops.The website has many individual products which have the same fabric and size options, but have different designs. So it is difficult to write valuable content that differs between several products that have similar designs. Right now each of the different designs has its own product page. We have a dilemma, because our options are:A.Combine similar designs of the product into one product page where the customer must choose a design, a fabric, and a size before checking out. This way we can have valuable content and don’t have to duplicate that content on other pages or try to find more to say about something that there really isn’t anything else to say about. However, this process will remove between 50% and 70% of the pages on the website. We know number of indexed pages is important to search engines and if they suddenly see that half of our pages are gone, we may cause more negative effects despite the fact that we are in fact aiming to provide more value to the user, rather than less.B.Leave the product pages alone and try to write more valuable content for each product page, which will be difficult because there really isn’t that much more to say, or more valuable ways to say it. This is the “safe” option as it means that our negative potential impact is reduced but we won’t necessarily see much positive trending either. C.Test solution A on a small percentage of the product categories to see any impact over the next several months before making sitewide updates to the product pages if we see positive impact, or revert to the old way if we see negative impact.Any sound advice would be of incredible value at this point, as the work we are doing isn’t having the desired effects and we are seeing consistent dropping rankings at this point.Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you,
Technical SEO | | Ed-iOVA0 -
Many Pages Being Combined Into One Long Page
Hi All, In talking with my internal developers, UX, and design team there has been a big push to move from a "tabbed" page structure (where as each tab is it's own page) to combining everything into one long page. It looks great from a user experience standpoint, but I'm concerned that we'll decrease in rankings for the tabbed pages that will be going away, even with a 301 in place. I initially recommending#! or pushstate for each "page section" on the long form content. However there are technical limitations with this in our CMS. The next idea I had was to still leave those pages out there and to link to them in the source code, but this approach may get shot down as well. Has anyone else had to solve for this issue? If so, how did you do it?
Technical SEO | | AllyBank1 -
How to verify a page-by-page level 301 redirect was done correctly?
Hello, I told some tech guys to do a page-by-page relevant 301 redirect (as talked about in Matt Cutts video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lVPrYoBkA) when a company wanted to move to a new domain when their site was getting redesigned. I found out they did a 302 redirect on accident and had to fix that, so now I don't trust they did the page-by-page relevant redirect. I have a feeling they just redirected all of the pages on the old domain to the homepage of the new domain. How could I confirm this suspicion? I run the old domain through screaming frog and it only shows 1 URL - the homepage. Does that mean they took all of the pages on the old domain offline? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | EvolveCreative0 -
Page for Link Building
Hello guys, My question is about link building and reciprocal links. Since many directories request a reciprocal link, makes me wonder if is not better to create a unique page in the website only for this kind of links. What do you guys recommend? Thanks in advance, PP
Technical SEO | | PedroM0 -
If you only want your home page to rank, can you use rel="canonical" on all your other pages?
If you have a lot of pages with 1 or 2 inbound links, what would be the effect of using rel="canonical" to point all those pages to the home page? Would it boost the rankings of the home page? As I understand it, your long-tail keyword traffic would start landing on the home page instead of finding what they were looking for. That would be bad, but might be worth it.
Technical SEO | | watchcases0