Technical question about site structure using a CMS, redirects, and canonical tag
-
I have a couple of sites using a particular CMS that creates all of the pages under a content folder, including the home page. So the url is www.example.com/content/default.asp. There is a default.asp in the root directory that redirects to the default page in the content folder using a response.redirect statement and it’s considered a 302 redirect. So all incoming urls, i.e. www.example.com and example.com and www.example.com/ will go to the default.asp which then redirects to www.example.com/ content/default.asp. How does this affect SEO? Should the redirect be a 301? And whether it’s a 301 or a 302, can we have a rel=canonical tag on the page that that is rel=www.example.com? Or does that create some sort of loop? I’ve inherited several sites that use this CMS and need to figure out the best way to handle it.
-
Thanks. It confirms what I was thinking. I have asked our developers if the page can be moved to the root, but am getting a lot of pushback. So if it can't be done, I will make the canonical page the content/default.asp.
-
I do find things get weird with Google when you're home page isn't at the root, and ASP seems to often do this.
Unfortunately, if you 301-redirect to the deeper level, you shouldn't canonical back up to the root - it's a mixed signal. I'm with Martin - if you can't change it, you should probably 301-redirect to "/content/default.asp" and then use that as the canonical version as well (internal links, inbound links where possible, etc.). It's not ideal, but it may be the least worst solution.
-
That's not a great mechanism for a CMS even before you consider SEO!
Do you understand ASP sufficiently to move the default.asp to the root directory and then apply the rel=canonical?
If the actual homepage is /content/default.asp then there are two things you should probably consider
1. Make the redirect from root to /content/default.asp a 301 as it is permanently at that address, not temporarily
2. Any links you get in need to point to /content/default.asp for max effect.(2) is really tough as it's messy for webmasters and doesn't do your website branding any good. So, to be honest I would be looking at moving that default page to root, if the choice were mine.
Open to other opinions.
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
-
Can you use a seperate url for a interior product page on a site?
I have a friend that has a health insurance agency site. He wants to add a new page, for child health care insurance to his existing site. But the issue is, he brought a new URL; insurancemykidnow.com and he want's to use it for the new page. Now, I'm not sure I'm right on this, but I don't think that can be done? I'm I wrong? = Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | Coppell0 -
Shopify Canonicals for Tagged Filters
I've been researching this topic endlessly and thought I had arrived at a solution but Screaming Frog indicates my solution was not successful. Problem: I used tags to filter my collections pages. The result, I discovered, was the creation of dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds, of additional collection URLs for each possible permutation of tag filters. I would like to make the collection page URL, with no tag filters, the canonical. Proposed Solution: I found the following code described somewhere as the solution: {% if template contains 'collection' and current_tags %} {% else %} {% endif %} However, I crawled my site with Screaming Frog and found that the canonical link element is still listed as the URL with the tags included. The crawler does recognizes the "noindex" instruction. Any ideas on what the best move is here?
Technical SEO | | vgusvg0 -
Canonical issues using Screaming Frog and other tools?
In the Directives tab within Screaming Frog, can anyone tell me what the difference between "canonicalised", "canonical", and "no canonical" means? They're found in the filter box. I see the data but am not sure how to interpret them. Which one of these would I check to find canonical issues within a website? Are there any other easy ways to identify canonical issues?
Technical SEO | | Flock.Media0 -
Should I use canonicals? Best practice?
Hi there, I've been working on a pretty dated site. The product pages have tabs that separate the product information, e.g., a tab for specifications, a tab for system essentials, an overview tab that is actually just a copy of the product page. Each tab is actually a link to a completely separate page, so product/main-page is split into product/main-page/specs, product/main-page/resources, etc. Wondering if canonicals would be appropriate in this situation? The information isn't necessarily duplicate (except for the overview tabs) but with each tab as a separate page, I would imagine that's diluting the value of the main page? The information all belongs to the main page, shouldn't it be saying "I'm a version of the main page"?
Technical SEO | | anneoaks0 -
SEO friendldy Site structure?
we are in the process or rewriting all the pages on one of our sites and will be changing some urls around. i was just wondering if dashes or underscores are better in the urls SEO wise? www.site.com/word-word-word/ or
Technical SEO | | 858-SEO
www.site.com/word_word_word/ i personally like the underscores better but some colleagues tell me that dashes are better, any tests out there on this issue?? Thanks0 -
Quick Seo question regarding 301 redirect
Hi everyone and thank you for showing interested in my problem and for helping me out with this easy thing i have going on
Technical SEO | | caw_roHere is how it puts out : I have 2 websites, same niche, mostly same keywords. Site #1 holding strong on google #2 ranking for months now. Site #2 was holding strong in google top 10 rankings until 2 weeks ago when it got sandboxed for some reason I want to use a 301 permanent redirect from Site #2 to Site #1 to pass all the link juice onto Site #1 and hopefully beat the #1 spot
The question: Will this affect Site #1 is anyway, considering Site #2 is in somehow sandbox ( i assume that, since he dropped more then 70 positions over night ) Is thins a good think to do or i risk damaging Site #1 by doing this ? Thanks allot in advance. Best regards,
Trinca Alexandru0 -
Using a canonical tag to eliminate ID variables?
My research on seomoz has resulted in conflicting ideas regarding the canonical tag. One article says avoid it, the other says embrace it. We have fixed a majority of our architecture problems using redirects for duplicate content, however, when we send out newsletters we still have these pesky tracking ids. I figured out how to remove them from analytics, but am unsure of how this affects our SEO. An example of one of our links is: https://www.quicklearn.com/transcript/?utm_source=news101011&utm_medium=e&utm_campaign=newclass&nlid=news101011&UID=2287 The original url being www.quicklearn.com/transcript/ the custom (non-Google) variables being nlid and uid. Is this a problem? Do I need rel cononical tags on each and every page?
Technical SEO | | QuickLearnTraining0 -
Robots.txt and canonical tag
In the SEOmoz post - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/robot-access-indexation-restriction-techniques-avoiding-conflicts, it's being said - If you have a robots.txt disallow in place for a page, the canonical tag will never be seen. Does it so happen that if a page is disallowed by robots.txt, spiders DO NOT read the html code ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050