Why do some URLs for a specific client have "/index.shtml"?
-
Reviewing our client's URLs for a 301 redirect strategy, we have noticed that many URLs have "/index.shtml." The part we don'd understand is these URLs aren't the homepage and they have multiple folders followed by "/index.shtml" Does anyone happen to know why this may be occurring? Is there any SEO value in keeping the "/index.shtml" in the URL?
-
SHTML is an old-school way to use SSI (server side includes) in what is otherwise a static HTML page.
Stack Overflow talks about this in more detail here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/519619/what-is-shtmlWeb servers know that if the page is .shtml, then it's okay to run inline php code, for example.
My guess is that your .shtml files are older remnants of SSI files.
I'm not a big fan of changing URLs just to clean up things, because if you change links you will need to use a 301 redirect, and that will keep about 85% of the SEO value of the original link.
If you do want to use inline php code on .html pages, I agree with Travis, above. You can modify your .htaccess file with:
addhandler x-httpd-php5-cgi .htm
addhandler x-httpd-php5-cgi .html(This will allow you to run php in static HTML files, without having to change the file extension to .php)
Hope this helps!
- Jeff
-
It sounds like there's a problem with the .htaccess file. There's a lot of potential negatives to the situation. One of those is duplicate content.
Find out if the potential duplicates are indexed. Perform a link audit for those pages and 301 or 410, depending upon value. I'm not a big fan of 'excessive' 301 redirects, so knowing nothing else about the situation I would err on the side of 410s.
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
-
From: http://www. to https://
Hi all, I am changing my hosting for legal and SEO reasons from http://www to https:// . Now I hear different stories on the redirects: 1: should i try and change my backlinks? 2: internally all links will be 301 redirected at first. Than I want to (manually) change them. It;s within Wordpress so there should be a plugin for this. Tips? 3: Will it affect my rankings and for what period? What I now know that at first it will drop little but eventually you will rank higher than before. Thanks so much in advance! Tymen
Technical SEO | | Tymen1 -
"non-WWW" vs "WWW" in Google SERPS and Lost Back Link Connection
A Screaming Frog report indicates that Google is indexing a client's site for both: www and non-www URLs. To me this means that Google is seeing both URLs as different even though the page content is identical. The client has not set up a preferred URL in GWMTs. Google says to do a 301 redirect from the non-preferred domain to the preferred version but I believe there is a way to do this in HTTP Access and an easier solution than canonical.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en GWMTs also shows that over the past few months this client has lost more than half of their backlinks. (But there are no penalties and the client swears they haven't done anything to be blacklisted in this regard. I'm curious as to whether Google figured out that the entire site was in their index under both "www" and "non-www" and therefore discounted half of the links. Has anyone seen evidence of Google discounting links (both external and internal) due to duplicate content? Thanks for your feedback. Rosemary0 -
What is the difference between "Referring Pages" and "Total Backlinks" [on Ahrefs]?
I always thought they were essentially the same thing myself but appears there may be a difference? Any one care to help me out? Cheers!
Technical SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Rel="canonical"
Hello guys, By fixing the duplicate meta description issues of my site I noticed something a bit weird.The pages are product pages and the product on each one of them is the same and the only difference is the length of the product. On each page there is a canonical tag, and the link within the tag points to the same page. www.example.com/Product/example/2001 <rel="canonical" href="www.example.com/Product/example/2001"></rel="canonical"> This happens on every other page. I read twice and I think I will do it again the post on GWT and I think that is wrong as it should point to a different url, which is www.example.com/ProductGroup/example/ which is the the page where all the product are grouped together. Cheers
Technical SEO | | PremioOscar0 -
I cannot find a way to implement to the 2 Link method as shown in this post: http://searchengineland.com/the-definitive-guide-to-google-authorship-markup-123218
Did Google stop offering the 2 link method of verification for Authorship? See this post below: http://searchengineland.com/the-definitive-guide-to-google-authorship-markup-123218 And see this: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/using-passive-link-building-to-build-links-with-no-budget In both articles the authors talk about how to set up Authorship snippets for posts on blogs where they have no bio page and no email verification just by linking directly from the content to their Google+ profile and then by linking the from the the Google+ profile page (in the Contributor to section) to the blog home page. But this does not work no matter how many ways I trie it. Did Google stop offering this method?
Technical SEO | | jeff.interactive0 -
Should we block URL param in Webmaster tools after URL migration?
Hi, We have just released a new version of our website that now has a human readable nice URL's. Our old ugly URL's are still accessible and cannot be blocked/redirected. These old URL's use a URL param that has an xpath like expression language to define the location in our catalog. We have about 2 million pages indexed with this old URL param in it while we have approximately 70k nice URL's after the migration. This high number of old URL's is due to facetting that was done using this URL param. I wonder if we should now completely block this URL param from Google Webmaster tools so that these ugly URL's will be removed from the Google index. Or will this harm our position in Google? Thanks, Chris
Technical SEO | | eCommerceSEO0 -
Url re-write / minimal subfolders
<colgroup><col width="411"></colgroup>
Technical SEO | | Diana.varbanescu
| One of the most common warnings on our site www.sta.co.uk is the use of parameters in URL strings (they're crawled ok, it's mainly duplication content issues we're trying to avoid). The current traffic manager suggested ‘stage 1’ - remove the unwanted folder structure but wouldn’t tailor the dynamic url I'd say it is difficult to quantify what result this would have in isolation and I would rather do this update in tandem with the ‘stage 2’ which adds structure to the dynamic urls with multiple parameters.(Both stages will involve rewriting the page url and redirecting the long url to the short) Any thoughts, please? Is there any benefit in removing the subfolders (1) or should we wait and do it in one go? Thanks everyone, |0 -
Follow up from http://www.seomoz.org/qa/discuss/52837/google-analytics
Ben, I have a follow up question from our previous discussion at http://www.seomoz.org/qa/discuss/52837/google-analytics To summarize, to implement what we need, we need to do three things: add GA code to the Darden page _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-12345-1']);_gaq.push(['_setAllowLinker', true]);_gaq.push(['_setDomainName', '.darden.virginia.edu']);_gaq.push(['_setAllowHash', false]);_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); Change links on the Darden Page to look like http://www.darden.virginia.edu/web/MBA-for-Executives/ and [https://darden-admissions.symplicity.com/applicant](<a href=)">Apply Now and make into [https://darden-admissions.symplicity.com/applicant](<a href=)" > onclick="_gaq.push(['_link', 'https://darden-admissions.symplicity.com/applicant']); return false;">Apply Now Have symplicity add this code. _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-12345-1']);_gaq.push(['_setAllowLinker', true]);_gaq.push(['_setDomainName', '.symplicity.com']);_gaq.push(['_setAllowHash', false]);_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); Due to our CMS system, it does not allow the user to add onClick to the link. So, we CANNOT add part 2) What will be the result if we have only 1) and 3) implemented? Will the data still be fed to GA account 'UA-12345-1'? If not, how can we get cross domain tracking if we cannot change the link code? Nick
Technical SEO | | Darden0