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
-
Keyword research, creating copy, fixing on-page optimisation - what next?
Hello - Wondered if I could get people's thoughts. We/I have started working on a client's website to improve everything - a general overhaul across SEO, on-page optimisation etc. I'm relatively new to this although picking things up and learning on the job which is great, and Moz is so helpful! So far we have conducted a review of the website, created a large list of keywords and analysed these, started overhauling the copy and adding the new keywords within this, have plans to overhaul the other elements of the site (headings, tags etc) and improve the design, functionality and customer journey through the website. My question is: where do I go from here in terms of keywords and SEO? Is it a case of plugging in the keywords we've researched, watch how they perform, and then switch things up with different keywords if they aren't performing as well as we expected? Is it really a lot of trial and error or is there an exact science behind it that I'm missing? I just feel a little as though we've pulled these keywords out of thin-air to a degree, and are adding them into our copy because the numbers on Moz show they should perform well, and they are what we are trying to promote on the website. But I don't know if this is right?! Perhaps I'm over-thinking it...
Technical SEO | | WhitewallGlasgow0 -
What to do with old conversion pages
Hey folks! I have a ton of old conversion pages from past trade shows, old webinars, etc that are either getting no traffic or very little. Wondering if I should just 404 them out? Here's an example: http://marketing.avidxchange.com/rent-manager-user-conference-demo-request-2015 For the pages getting traffic (from PPC, referral links, organic) my presumption is to keep those. The only problem is we have multiple instances of the same asset (prior marketers would just clone them for different campaigns), so in those cases should I 301 them to one version? Looking for advice on best practices here for future instances. Such as future trade shows, after we use the conversion pages at an event, should I just delete/404 them? Cleaning up old pages should I just delete/404? They don't have any value really and they're annoying to have hanging around. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Bill_King0 -
Does adding subcategory pages to an commerce site limit the link juice to the product pages?
I have a client who has an online outdoor gear company. He mostly sells high end outdoor gear (like ski jackets, vests, boots, etc) at a deep discount. His store currently only resides on Ebay. So we're building him an online store from scratch. I'm trying to determine the best site architecture and wonder if we should include subcategory pages. My issue is that I think the subcategory pages might be good from a user experience, but it'll add an additional layer between the homepage and the product pages. The problem is that I think a lot of user's might be searching for the product name to see if they can find a better deal, and my client's site would be perfect for them. So I really want to rank well for the product pages, but I'm nervous that the subcategory pages will limit the link juice of the product pages. Home --> SubCategory --> Product List --> Product Detail Home --> Men's Ski Clothing --> Men's Ski Jack --> North Face Mt Everest Jacket Should I keep the SubCategory page "Men's Ski Clothing" if it helps usability? On a separate note, the SubCategory pages would have some head keyword terms, but I don't think that he could rank well for these terms anytime soon. However, they would be great pages / terms to rank for in the long term. Should this influence the decision?
Technical SEO | | Santaur0 -
Is the Authority of Individual Pages Diluted When You Add New Pages?
I was wondering if the authority of individual pages is diluted when you add new pages (in Google's view). Suppose your site had 100 pages and you added 100 new pages (without getting any new links). Would the average authority of the original pages significantly decrease and result in a drop in search traffic to the original pages? Do you worry that adding more pages will hurt pages that were previously published?
Technical SEO | | Charlessipe0 -
Too Many Page Links
I have 8 niche websites for golf clubs. This was done to carve out tight niches for specific types of clubs then only broadens each club by type - i.e. better player, game improvement, max game improvement. So far, for fairly young sites, <1 year, they are doing fairly well as I build content. Running campaigns has alerted me to one problem - too many on-page links. And because I use Wordpress those links are on each page in the right sidebar and lead to the other sites. Even though visitors arrive via organic search in most cases they tend to eventually exit to one of the other sites or they click on a product (Ebay) and venture off to hopefully make a purchase. Ex: Drivers site will have a picture link for each of the other 7 sites. Question: If I have one stie (like a splash page) used as one link to that page listing all the sites with a brief explanation of each site will this cause visitors to bounce off because they will have one click, than the list and other clicks depending on what other club/site they would like to go to. The links all open in new windows. This would cut down on the number of links per page of each site but will it cause too much work for visitors and cause them to leave?
Technical SEO | | NicheGuy0 -
Should i Change On Page Optimization ?
Hi, PC monitoring and computer monitoring software are our targeted keywords. Around 5 weeks ago, We created a page for pc monitoring software (home/pc-monitoring-software) and did some bookmarking and guest posts targeting PC monitoring software keyword. Now we are in Top 15 on Google for PC monitoring software keyword . Initially we were thinking to change content of around 2 year old home page to adjust computer monitoring software keyword and do SEO for this keyword. But few days ago, we noticed that our pc-monitoring-software page is already ranking in early fourties for computer monitoring software keyword as well. May be Google is giving advatage of being synonym of PC . Now we are thinking that we should optimize the PC monitoring software page for both computer and PC software keywords like adding "computer monitoring software" in addition to existing "pc monitoring software" in title and similalrly do other on page related work for Computer Mnitoring Software. We are also thinking of doing 301 redirect of existing pc-monitoring-software page to new computer-monitoring-software page which will be optimized both for PC and Computer. Please suggest me if it will help to get good ranking for both PC and Computer Monitoring software if we make above mentioned changes or we should not change the existing pc-monitoring-software page and shall stick to earlier plan of changing the home page to adjust for computer monitoring software.? I'm new to SEO, so want to make wise decision with your help instead of learning with failures. Thanks, shahzad
Technical SEO | | shaz_lhr0 -
Duplicate Page Content
Hi within my campaigns i get an error "crawl errors found" that says duplicate page content found, it finds the same content on the home pages below. Are these seen as two different pages? And how can i correct these errors as they are just one page? http://poolstar.net/ http://poolstar.net/Home_Page.php
Technical SEO | | RouteAccounts0 -
We have been hit with the "Doorway Page" Penalty - fixed the issue - Got MSG that will still do not meet guidelines.
I have read the FAQs and checked for similar issues: YES / NO
Technical SEO | | LVH
My site's URL (web address) is:www.recoveryconnection.org
Description (including timeline of any changes made): We were hit with the Doorway Pages penalty on 5/26/11. We have a team of copywriters, and a fast-working dev dept., so we were able to correct what we thought the problem was, "targeting one-keyword per page" and thin content. (according to Google) Plan of action: To consolidate "like" keywords/content onto pages that were getting the most traffic and 404d the pages with the thin content and that were targeting singular keywords per page. We submitted a board approved reconsideration request on 6/8/11 and received the 2nd message (below) on 6/16/11. ***NOTE:The site was originally designed by the OLD marketing team who was let go, and we are the NEW team trying to clean up their mess. We are now resorting to going through Google's general guidelines page. Help would be appreciated. Below is the message we received back. Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.recoveryconnection.org/, We received a request from a site owner to reconsider http://www.recoveryconnection.org/ for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines. In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from http://www.recoveryconnection.org/ may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines. If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration?hl=en and resubmit your site for reconsideration. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team Any help is welcome. Thanks0