Canonical vs 301 - Web Development
-
So I'm having a conversation with the development team at my work and I'm a little tired today so I thought I would ask for other opinions. The currently the site duplicates it's full site by having a 200 show with or without a trailing slash. I have asked for a 301 redirect to with the trailing slash. They countered with having all the rel=canonical be the trailing slash, which I know is acceptable. My issue is that while a rel=canonical is acceptable, since my site has a very high level of competition and a very aggressive link building strategy, I believe that it may be beneficial to have the 301 redirect. BUT, I may be wrong. When we're talking hundreds of thousands of links, I would love to have them directly linked instead of possibly splitting them up between a duplicate page that has a correct canonical. I'm curious to what everyone thinks though....
-
+1 for Egol here. A canonical is just a request to Google - a 301 is a directive Google has to respect. I don't really understand why your technical team is making such a fuzz about it - enforcing the trailing slash (or not) is just 1/2 lines in your .htacess file. Check Stackoverflow
Dirk
-
Going straight to the root. There are two versions, with and without slash, because someone started using them. So the first thing that needs to be done is to decide which one is dominant today and go with it. Immediately thereafter, development team, bloggers, everyone is to be informed of the new form of your URL and be expected to use it. Clean them up, get them off of the site. It's time to stop being sloppy. People who don't go with the company's method need to be reminded.
You will find disagreements on if you should use 301 or if you should use rel=canonical.
The advantage of a 301 is that it takes control and forces the URL that you want to the browser and bot. In contrast rel=canonical is a "hint" to Google. We know for a fact that google changes their mind about how they handle things and they will ignore variants of URLs for an awful long time. This same problem exists with parameters. Google provides parameter controls in your Search Console, however, if you have experience with them you will know that they are highly unreliable and take a long time to be picked up and partially obeyed. So you can take control with 301 or use rel=canonical in combination with prayer.
I use 301s because I don't trust Google to do things my way and because once you start using 301s your problems will immediately be reduced in size because the versions of the URLs that you don't want to see will be permanently eliminated from the address window of the browser. I am also pretty luck that the staff here knows how the URLs on our websites are standardized.
-
When it comes to the trailing slash on website URLs, the proper way is to use a 301 Permanent Redirect. However, you can help minimize this problem by fixing all of the internal links on the site so that you always link internally to the version that you prefer.
-
In some cases, implementing a self-referring 301 redirect may cause an infinite loop in which your homepage would not be accessible at all, so I can understand your dev team's reluctance.
A canonical tag and a 301 redirect pass the same amount of link authority, so in this case, they serve the same purpose and provide the same benefit. I'd stick with the canonical tag and pick a different, more valuable battle to fight.
-
301 Redirects are primarily designed for more permanent complicated jobs.
- Expired content
- Multiple versions of homepage
- Change of site
Canonical tags are a better way of telling Google that a query or slash is serving the exact same page content and is just a variation of the URL. Neither if done correctly will have a negative effect on the SEO, however using the canonical tag is far easier and appropriate.
https://moz.com/blog/301-redirect-or-relcanonical-which-one-should-you-use
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
-
Canonical for multi store
Hello all, I need to make sure I am doing this correctly; I have one website and with two stores (content is mostly identical) with the following canonical tags; UK/EU Store: thespacecollective.com USA/ROW Store: thespacecollective.com/us/ Am I right in thinking that this is incorrect and that only one site should be referencing with the canonical tag? ie; UK/EU Store: thespacecollective.com USA/ROW Store: thespacecollective.com/us/ (please note the removed /us/ from the end of the URL)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moon-boots0 -
M.ExampleSite vs mobile.ExampleSite vs ExampleSite.com
Hi, I have a call with a potential client tomorrow where all I know is that they are wigged-out about canonicalization, indexing and architecture for their three sites: m.ExampleSite.com mobile.ExampleSite.com ExampleSite.com The sites are pretty large... 350k for the mobiles and 5 million for the main site. They're a retailer with endless products. They're main site is not mobile-responsive, which is evidently why they have the m and mobile sites. Why two, I don't know. This is how they currently hand this: What would you suggest they do about this? The most comprehensive fix would be making the main site mobile responsive and 301 the old mobile sub domains to the main site. That's probably too much work for them. So, what more would you suggest and why? Your thoughts? Best... Mike P.S., Beneath my hand-drawn portrait avatar above it says "Staff" at this moment, which I am not. Some kind of bug I guess.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
301 vs 410 for subdirectory that was moved to a new domain, 2-years later
Hi all, I've read a lot about 301 vs 404 and 410s, but the case is pretty unique so I decided to get some feedback from you. Both websites are travel related but we had one destination as a subdirectory of the other one (two neighboring countries, where more than 90% of business was related to the 'main' destination and the rest to the 'satellite'). This was obviously bad practice and we decided to move the satellite destination to its own domain. Everything was done 2 years ago and we opted for 301s to the new domain as we had some good links pointing to satellite content. (All of the moved content is destination specific and still relevant) Few weeks back we figured out that google still shows our subdirectory when doing specific 'site:' search and looking further into it, we realized we still get traffic for satellite destination through the main website via links acquired before the move. Not a lot of hits, but they still sporadically occur. A decision was made (rather hastily) to 410 pages and see if that will make satellite subdir pages not show in google searches. So 3 weeks in, 410 errors are climbing in GWMT, but satellite subdirectory still shows in google searches. One part of the team is pushing to put back in place 301s. The other part of the team is concerned with the 'health' of the main website as those pages are not relevant for it, and want them gone . What would you do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | halloranc0 -
Do my redirects on my homepage need to be 301?
Our domain name is something like www.I-am-cool.com but most people just type in iamcool.com After doing some research I found that those are 302 redirects and I think they should be 301. If I am correct do I need to redirect www.iamcool.com and iamcool.com or just one or the other?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
301 Redirect pages with .aspx extension
I want 301 redirect all a website's subpages with a .aspx extension to a page without the .aspx etension. Example: I want to 301 redirect www.website.com/services.aspx to www.website.com/services Right now if you do not include .aspx on the end of every URL it gives a 404 error. I have used the web.config file to 301 redirect non-www to www and /default.aspx to /. I am not extremely familiar with IIS 7.0 or web.config, so any help would be great. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VentaMarketing0 -
2-stage 301 redirects
Dear colleagues, I have quite an unusual situation with one of my client's websites, and I could use an advise from someone who experienced the same circumstances: They are currently planning on launching a new site under the same domain (by September), when several key current pages are intended to be replaced with new equivalent pages under new URLs. So far it's pretty simple, BUT - due to a merger with another company they will be migrating their entire website to a different domain within a year. My question is - what would be the optimal solution for redirects? We are considering a 301 from the current pages to the new pages under the same domain, and once the new domain is activated - aside from defining 301 redirects from the new pages under the same domain to the new domain, we will cancel the original 301 from the old pages to the new pages on the same domain, and instead define new 301 for those pages to the new domain. What do you think? Is there a better solution - like using 302 redirects for the first stage? Has anyone tried such a procedure? Your input will be highly appreciated! Thanks in advance, Omer
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Usearch0 -
Is it ok to use both 301 redirect and rel="canonical' at the same time?
Hi everyone, I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I just wasn't able to find a response in previous questions. To fix the problems in our website regarding duplication I have the possibility to set up 301's and, at the same time, modify our CMS so that it automatically sets a rel="canonical" tag for every page that is generated. Would it be a problem to have both methods set up? Is it a problem to have a on a page that is redirecting to another one? Is it advisable to have a rel="canonical" tag on every single page? Thanks for reading!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SDLOnlineChannel0 -
301 - do i change old links once 301 is in place?
Hey all, I'm about to setup a 301 on a website that has pretty good SEO rankings and I have the ability to change all the old inbound links that point to the old site, to the new site - should I leave them pointing to the old site that has the 301 on it or change all the old inbound links to the new domain name? Which has better SEO value? Thanks for helping, Anthony
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Grenadi0