Is it redundant to include a redirect to my canonical domain (www) in my .htaccess file since I already have the correct rel="canonical" in my header?
-
I've been reading the benefits of each practice, but not found anyone mentioning whether it's really necessary to do both? Personally I try to stay clear of .htaccess rewrites unless it's absolutely necessary, since because I've read they can slow down a website.
-
I'd like to just add that a 301 redirect passes the same amount of page rank as a regular link would.
Pretty much there's no reason not to use a 301 in your htaccess. Go for it!
-
It would take a helluva lot of .htaccess rules to noticeably slow down a site, HOP. (We're talking many hundreds at least, if not more.)
The 301 redirect is a vastly stronger signal to the search engines than the canonical - which even Google says is treated as a "suggestion" not a directive.
The other huge benefit of the 301 is it standardises the URL all visitors will see in their address bar, so when they copy/paste to create a link (for example) they're always getting the canonical version.
Even though it's now considered that a 301 doesn't lose much juice (at least in Google, no word from Bing), I still much prefer that as many of my visitors are linking directly to the canonical version as possible. This is vastly more likely with the 301 consolidating the address that is visible.
So to me, using the 301 is essential. Adding the canonical is proactive to deal with other possibilities like unexpected variables getting added by outside sources for example, or even just Analytics utm tracking tags.
Make sense?
Paul
-
No it is not redundant as they are essentially two different things. You absolutely need to do redirect in htaccess via 301.
Canonical tags are used for duplicate content, not redirection. Google does not consider the canonical tag a directive but instead choose it to be a "helpful hint." If you have two pages at entirely different URLs with the majority of the content identical, that is when you need that Canonical tag.
For non-www to www issues, you really need to use a 301 redirect. Don't feel nervous about doing so. Every site does. Or at least, every site worth a darn does.
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
-
Alot of 302 Redirects, what to do?
I'm currently auditing my companies website, and we encountered thousands of 302 redirects. The 302 pages are products page, which is a question and answer module at the bottom of each products page. What best practice should I do to get rid of the 302 redirects? add those pages to the .robots.txt? Or do individually and add a no index? This would help boost our rankings up correct?
On-Page Optimization | | petmkt0 -
What is the correct code to write the rel=canonical in the HTML HEAD of the page?
is it like: html> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/" /> head> <body> ...<ref>sdfdfref> or like:
On-Page Optimization | | dubraverd0 -
Canonical tags in the body?
Hi there, Does anyone know if placing canonical tags in the body instead of the header of a page will still "take"? The system we are on means that making an editable header is no easy business and I was just wondering how big of a difference it makes to have it in a different area. Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | Whittie0 -
Canonical URL Category and Tags
Hello, I would like to know that I want to use both category and tags in my blog StylishMahi. If I index both category and tags, should I use canonical URL tag to pass referring to main category. As I want more my categories in SERP results ranking higher? I have also attached a picture. Can someone please confirm? Photo by Moz ZigdWMx
On-Page Optimization | | PratapSingh0 -
Rel=author WP Plugin
Anyone find a WP plugin they like for rel=author and rel=publisher markup? I'd love to find one that gives and about the author at the end of a blog, and tags the G+ page on the end for rich snippets. Does that exist?? 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | AESEO0 -
Help I don't understand Rel Canonical
I'm really stuck on how to fix up Rel Canonical errors on a Wordpress site. I went in and changed all the URLs to remove the www and added / to the end. I get this message on page analysis details: <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://www.some-url.com.au/",</dd> <dd>"http://some-url..com.au/", and</dd> <dd>"http://some-url..com.au/"</dd> <dd>Well the first one with the www doesn't exists and the second two urls are the same! (Note that I have removed the actual URL for this post)</dd> <dd>I'm not sure how to read and fix the errors from the reports ether. The only issues I can see is that the 'Tag Value' has the www and the 'Page Title - URL' doesn't have the www.
On-Page Optimization | | zapprabbit
</dd>0 -
Rel="canonical" on home page?
I'm using wordpress and the all in one seo pack with the canonical option checked. As I understand it the rel="canonical" tag should be added to pages that are duplicate or similar to tell google that another page (one without the rel="canonical" tag) is the correct one as the url in the tag is pointing google towards it. Why then does the all in one seo pack add rel="canonical" to every page on my site including the home page? Isn't that confusing for google?
On-Page Optimization | | SamCUK0 -
Rel Canonical
I will be quick and to the point. I am clearly a novice. I received a notice on my seomoz account that I had 12 pages with a Rel Canonical issue. It seems serious. Can this be a quick fix? Any thoughts? Below is the site address. petbarnpdx.com Thanks in advance for any input on this! Dave
On-Page Optimization | | APICDA0