Does having active urls with and without trailing .html impact SEO?
-
A recent update resulted in duplication of urls on our site due to inconsistent url structure:
Example:
- /category2.html and /category2 both active on the site as the same page
Will this hurt and should we create redirects using only one version of the url?
- /category2.html redirect to /category2
-
It may do or it may not. It may or may not impact upon duplicate content, it always impacts upon crawl allowance
I'm going to use trailing slash URLs (a more common issue and consolidation feature) in my example, but it's equally applicable for stripping .HTML or non-resource (PDF, JPG, JS etc) file extensions
Quite a lot of sites, even if they refuse to clean this up, will at least 'canonical' one URL to the other. That let's Google know that one version of the page is canonical and should receive relevant SEO traffic - it avoids content duplication related penalties or algorithmic devaluations. There are two things it doesn't help Google out with
- It doesn't tell Google not to crawl both URLs (you might say the canonical tag does that, but keep in mind Google has to have already loaded both URLs to read both canonical tags so... no)
- It doesn't consolidate SEO authority to the same degree that 301 redirects do. Say one page has some nice backlinks and the other one does too, that 'ranking benefit' won't all be consolidated onto one page. The canonical tag will make sure only one page ranks, but it won;t gain the 'optimal' benefit of the backlinks for both web-pages (301s do a better job of that, generally)
So as you can see, even if you avoid content duplication issues, there are other problems that could potentially arise. This being the case, it's best to consolidate your URL architecture at and and all levels
My preference is this logic in the htaccess (via 301s):
- Always force a trailing slash for pages (as they may have sub-pages, and can also be directories)
- EXCEPT if the active URL is a file (e.g: somesite.com/some-folder/some-image.jpg) - in which case, do not force a trailing slash (files are never folders / directories)
- But if the file extension is page-based rather than resource based (e.g: .html) then strip the extension and finish with a trailing slash
SEO is about avoiding risk. If there is conflicting information on a subject, pick the tried and tested (safe) method
Note that if you are on an MS / IIS server (rather than Linux / Apache) you may have to modify web.config instead of '.htaccess'
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
-
Structure of HTML Page
Hello, Is is true that search engine give more value to some part of the page than other ? Is only the main content considered ? or are the other also given weight but very small weight ? If I have div in the main content as those considered par of the main content or no ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics1 -
Onsite SEO vs Offsite SEO
Hey I know the importance of both onsite & offsite, primarily with regard to outreach/content/social. One thing I am trying to determine at the moment, is how much do I invest in offsite. My current focus is to improve our onpage content on product pages, which is taking some time as we have a small team. But I also know our backlinks need to improve. I'm just struggling on where to spend my time. Finish the onsite stuff by section first, or try to do a bit of both onsite/offsite at the same time?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey1 -
URL Structure
URL i have to use targeted keyword on all sub page domain or not for example now i am using url like this format fundingtype.html litigation-funding.html legal-funding.html financingservices.html process.html and if i re-write all url with targated keyword like this format lawsuit-loans-fundingtype.html lawsuit-loans-litigation-funding.html lawsuit-loans-legal-funding.html lawsuit-loans-financingservices.html lawsuit-loans-process.html so which type URL are more effective for best SEO ??
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JulieWhite0 -
Transferring link juice from a canonical URL to an SEO landing page.
I have URLs that I use for SEM ads in Google. The content on those pages is duplicate (affiliate). Those pages also have dynamic parameters which caused lots of duplicate content pages to be indexed. I have put a canonical tag on the Parameter pages to consolidate everything to the canonical URL. Both the canonical URL and the Parameter URLs have links pointing to them. So as it stands now, my canonical URL is still indexed, but the parameter URLs are not. The canonical page is still made up of affiliate (duplicate) content though. I want to create an equivalent SEO landing page with unique content. But I'd like to do two things 1) remove the canonical URL from the index - due to duplicate affiliate content, and 2) transfer the link juice from the canonical URL over to the SEO URL. I'm thinking of adding a meta NoIndex, follow tag to the canonical tag - and internally linking to the new SEO landing page. Does this strategy work? I don't want to lose the link juice on the canonical URL by adding a meta noindex tag to it. Thanks in advance for your advice. Rob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | partnerf0 -
"Category" word in URLs of blog is it SEO Friendly URL ??
Hello respected community members, I saw many times that "Category" word comes in URL of blog. So my que is that is this negative for SEO or Positive. & if we don't wanna to come CATEGORY in URL how can we remove while URL Optimization ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sourabhrana390 -
Followup question to rand(om) question: Would two different versions (mobile/desktop) on the same URL work well from an SEO perspective and provide a better overall end-user experience?
We read today's rand(om) question on responsive design. This is a topic we have been thinking about and ultimately landing on a different solution. Our opinion is the best user experience is two version (desktop and mobile) that live on one URL. For example, a non-mobile visitor that visits http://www.tripadvisor.com/ will see the desktop (non-responsive) version. However, if a mobile visitor (i.e. iOS) visits the same URL they will see a mobile version of the site, but it is still on the same URL There is not a separate subdomain or URL - instead the page dynamically changes based on the end user's user agent. It looks like they are accomplishing this by using javascript to change the physical layout of the page to match the user's device. This is what we are considering doing for our site. It seems this would simultaneously solve the problems mentioned in the rand(om) question and provide an even better user experience. By using this method, we can create a truly mobile version of the website that is similar to an app. Unfortunately, mobile versions and desktop users have very different expectations and behaviors while interacting with a webpage. I'm interested to hear the negative side of developing two versions of the site and using javascript to serve the "right" version on the same URL. Thanks for your time!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davidangotti0 -
SEO through Social Media, what have you been doing? :)
Hi, Just a general discussion really, what sort of thing have you been up to regarding social media and it helping SEO. One thing that does interest me is generating tweets/likes and also using Google plus profile to help SEO.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | activitysuper0 -
Impact of Non-English target keywords in URL
Hi all, our site language is Farsi (Persian) so at first we tried to create URLs that contain our target keywords in Farsi too. The problem with this approach is that our URLs are not shown in a friendly style anymore: a bunch of unicode numeric codes instead of Farsi characters. Do you know which is the best approach? 1. Creating ugly looking URLs containing Farsi keywords 2. Forget about putting our keywords in URLs and have nice English URLs Thanks in advance for your time and help 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | diki0