| mysite.com & mysite.com/index.cfm duplication - best way to fix?
|
besnette
msg:4407485 | 10:23 pm on Jan 16, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I think this is probably a pretty common question and issue, and probably multiple ways to do it, but I want to make sure that
www.mysite.com
and
www.mysite.com/index.cfm
isn't resulting in a duplicate page/content issue.
They are both, obviously the same page.
my www.mysite.com/index.cfm has a lot of links to it so it is being counted as it's own page
Should I do a 301 to just have it switch to the root if someone types in the ../index.cfm part, or is using a caonical meta tag best, or perhaps both?
Thank you for any feedback or suggestions. Just trying to learn what the 'best practices' are on this issue.
|
tedster
msg:4407726 | 3:09 pm on Jan 17, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I'd say do both. The 301 is the most important, because it allows full technical responsibility on your server. With the canonical link tag, its effectiveness is up to the search engines and whenever possible, it pays to take as much responsibility for yourself as you can - but the canonical tag is a good backup or "safety factor."
|
enigma1
msg:4407740 | 3:26 pm on Jan 17, 2012 (gmt 0) |
My opinion is to make sure your pages do not display the www.mysite.com/index.cfm but only www.mysite.com whenever you need to link to your home page internally. You don't need a redirect in this case.
And it won't do any good to redirect if your pages that return 200, expose links that lead to 301s.
|
besnette
msg:4407753 | 4:06 pm on Jan 17, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Thank you for your replies.
@enigma1 - over the years, I have linked to my site to the /index.cfm page (this was before I understood the dupe content issue, problem) - so I am trying to fix those.
@tedster - to further my question - google would not look at a 301 as a slimy redirect in any way as long as that is indeed the homepage, and although I do link to that page from other places (internally and externally)? I just don't want G to think I am doing anything tricky - just trying to remove a dupe content issue.
Thanks for both of your replies. I really appreciate it!
|
tedster
msg:4407757 | 4:15 pm on Jan 17, 2012 (gmt 0) |
No - there's nothing deceptive about such a 301 redirect at all. It's just "good server hygiene."
|
|
|
