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
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
-
Home Page and ranking
I have a problem and i have a question on that. Many important keywords and long tail keywords are ranking with the home page url.
Technical SEO | | mazzamz
How can i enrich the home page content without having a bad result and should i try to make the google spider send to more specific page?0 -
Banned Page
I have been using a 3rd party checker on indexed pages in google. It has shown several banned pages. I type the page in and it comes up. But it is nowhere to be found for me to delete it. It is not in the wordpress pages. It also shows up in the duplicate content section in my campaigns in moz.com. I can find the page to delete it. If it is banned then I do not want to redirect it to the correct page. Any ideas on how to fix this?
Technical SEO | | Roots70 -
Pages to be indexed in Google
Hi, We have 70K posts in our site but Google has scanned 500K pages and these extra pages are category pages or User profile pages. Each category has a page and each user has a page. When we have 90K users so Google has indexed 90K pages of users alone. My question is. Should we leave it as they are or should we block them from being indexed? As we get unwanted landings to the pages and huge bounce rate. If we need to remove what needs to be done? Robots block or Noindex/Nofollow Regards
Technical SEO | | mtthompsons0 -
Why is the Page Authority of my product pages so low?
My domain authority is 35 (homepage Page Authority = 45) and my website has been up for years: www.rainchainsdirect.com Most random pages on my site (like this one) have a Page Authority of around 20. However, as a whole, the individual pages of my products rank exceptionally low. Like these: http://www.rainchainsdirect.com/products/copper-channel-link-rain-chain (Page Authority = 1) http://www.rainchainsdirect.com/collections/todays-deals/products/contempo-chain (Page Authority = 1) I was thinking that for whatever reason they have such low authority, that it may explain why these pages rank lower in google for specific searches using my exact product name (in other words, other sites that are piggybacking of my unique products are ranking higher for my product in a specific name search than the original product itself on my site) In any event, I'm trying to get some perspective on why these pages remain with the same non-existent Page Authority. Can anyone help to shed some light on why and what can be done about it? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | csblev0 -
Pages plummeting in ranking
Hi all, I have a question, which i hope you can answer for me. I have a site www.betxpert.com (a danish betting site) and we have tried to do some SEO to improve conversions. One of the steps we have taken was to link to all of our bookmaker reviews in our menu (a mega menu). All of our bookmakers have an img and text link in the menu. The menu is shown on every page of the site. Since we have made this change we have been plumeting down the SERPs. For the search "betsafe" this page http://www.betxpert.com/bookmakere/betsafe is no longer in the top 50. We also added the "stars" so that the google result will show our over all review for the bookmaker, in order to stand out in the SERPs. Can anyone explain to me what the problem might be? Over extensive internal linking or?
Technical SEO | | rasmusbang0 -
Pages not being found in serp
Hi I'm helping a collegue with his website. For what ever reason the pages in the Solutions Menu are not being found in the search result for keywords related to the pages. (Homepage mainly comes up in the search result). Does anyone have any advise to why this may be happening? *To give you a bit of a background understanding, previously all the menu content was copied (which I made him change), he also had hidden text on some pages (i made him remove, white text on white background) plus the url structure changed as well. Persoanlly I think he is over using , links, internal linking is not great & the general content is not great in the menu. Your Thoughts are welcomed, thank you.
Technical SEO | | Socialdude0 -
Removing pages from website
Hello all, I am fairly new to the SEOmoz community. But i am working for a company which organizes exhibitons, events and training in Holland. A lot of these events are only given ones ore twice and then we do not organise them any more because they are no longer relevant. Every event has its own few webpages which provide information about the event and are being indexed by Google. In the past we did not remove any of these events. I was looking in the CMS and saw a lot of events of 2008 and older which are being indexed. To clean the website and the CMS i am thinking of removing these pages of old events. The risk is that these pages have some links to them and are getting some traffic, so if i remove them there is a risk of losing traffic and rankings. What would be the wise thing to do? Make a folder with archive or something? Regards, Ruud
Technical SEO | | RuudHeijnen0 -
Ads at the top of the page
hi mozzers, I have a website made in dreamweaver. Right at the very top of all of my pages is a text advert with a link to an affiliate in the ad. This link is very lucrative and gets a lot of sales, but i'm concerned it may have some negatives from an SEO perspective. As it's the first text on every page, i'm guessing bots will read it first. Could this potentially cause problems? If so, is there a best practice that would allow me to keep it there and keep the bots happy? Cheers, Peter
Technical SEO | | PeterM220