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
-
Page Speed Insights for www and non www sites
I'm testing a client site for speed and I'm getting different results when I test www and non www. What's causing this from the same site? Non www scored 37/100 for mobile, very concerning www scored 54/100 for mobile, still problems but not as severe Can anyone shed any light on this please?
On-Page Optimization | | Marketing_Optimist0 -
Will google regards www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 as the duplicate content?
Our site has some affiliates, and the affiliate id is the suffix following with the url "?xxxxxx". I can see Google Analytics regards www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 as the different page, but in fact they are exactly the same, the version www.example.com?331457 is the visit from our affiliate site. And yesterday I start up my Moz Pro membership, and in the crawl issues I see SEOMoz thinks www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 are duplicate content. Is this really an issue? Will the search engine thinks these two pages are duplicate content?? Thanks you guys My first question here, not too dumb I hope. -----------------Update---------------------- I should explain how our affiliates work. We are an eBook related software company, and anyone can apply an affiliate account on the transaction platform "RegNow" even without our permission because we have opened the affiliate door. When a visitor come to our order page from an affiliate site, the url will add the affiliate ID suffix "?xxxxxx", and it's combined in cookies. After the deal is done, the affiliate gets his commission. So no matter how I customize the url with URL Builder, there must be the suffix "?xxxxxx". It's the ID of our affiliate, or they will get nothing. So the key point is, will the suffix "?331457" makes Google think www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 are different pages and duplicate content?
On-Page Optimization | | JonnyGreenwood0 -
301 to Intermediate Page then Rel=Canonical from Intermediate to target page
Hi I'm working on an eCommerce site and don't have direct access to the CMS. I had requested developers to provide me a facilty to 301 via htaccess however this is working slight differently. I need guidance from experts whether it's okay or not: Old Page: example.com/old Target New Page: example.com/new After Implementing the redirect, It redirects to an intermediate page or in other words, The same target URL with a question mark added: example.com/new? (notice the question mark in the new URL) This intermediate page has a canonical tag for the exact target URL. So, if I 301 redirect example.com/old to example.com/new? (Intermediate page) and If the intermediate page example.com/new? has a canonical tag for the exact target URL (example.com/new), Will I be able to pass the link juice and authority of old page to the new page?
On-Page Optimization | | Ankkesh0 -
How do I do a 301 Redirect in Wordpress
I have several pages that are showing up as "duplicate" on my Wordpress based site based upon the structure of site. I was wondering how to do a 301 redirect for these pages
On-Page Optimization | | SteveSweat0 -
Should ".html" in the URL or not?
Does URL like /wedding-dresses.html/f/price/2,100 with "html" in the middle do harm to SEO? Should I drop the ".html"?
On-Page Optimization | | StevenRoland0 -
The "100 links/page recommendation" - Do Duplicate Links Count?
We have way too many links on our homepage. The PageRank Link Juice Calculator (www.ecreativeim.com/pagerank-link-juice-calculator.php) counts them to 300. But all of them are not unique, that is some links point to the same URL. So my question: does the "100 links/page recommendation" refer to all anchors on the page or only to unique link target URLs? I know "100" is just a standard recommendation.
On-Page Optimization | | TalkInThePark0 -
Www vs "non" www site addresses and SEO
I first apologize for the lame question title - didn't really know how to word it... I'm having a bit of a conundrum and cannot figure out whats going on, but in the mean time I thought I would ask to see if its hurting my ranking. My site at www.ap-mg.com is built on WordPress using the Thesis them by DIY (just a little upfront info). I am very careful to make sure that all my links are in a particular format i.e. http://www.ap-mg.com - on my site, as well as other sites I have my profile on. My site also used to be hosted on the /home directory until about a month ago. My problem is that when I click on the DA MoxBar link while at my sites homepage, it takes me to Open Explorer, but to ap-mg.com and shows no results - I then add the www to the front of the address and vuala - results. But then the second issue I'm having is then it tells me that my site is redirecting the the /home directory, which its not and I'm still trying to figure that one out. So with all the craziness with my site, www, no www, /home....is this killing any chance of real ranking?
On-Page Optimization | | apmgsmith0 -
Should my client remove "SEO" from the XML sitemap name?
I have suggested to a client with limited content on their site (considering it's in a very competitive sector with oceans of content possibilities!) that they probably shouldn't name the XML sitemap featuring their "seo content pages" (I hate that terminology BTW!) - google_sitemap_seo.xml My reasoning is that if I was a Google engineer or Google bot, I would probably ignore and disregard those pages because they are most likely poor quality content/doorway pages/boiler plate pages/ "enter your descriptive phrase here" pages. The push back from tech is that it doesn't make a difference so we're not going to do it.
On-Page Optimization | | Red_Mud_Rookie0