duplicate content problem

[puddlec]

sorry if this is the wrong place to put this.

 

i would like to setup a 301 redirect

 

for both non www.

and www. without the index.php at the end

 

the website had an old html page saying site under construction, which is no longer so, (and snce been removed) and google has listed that,

and if you click on it it goes to the home page (without /index.php

 

but the ome page is also accessable at /index.php

 

so i would like the website to goto the www. one with index.php at the end

 

i got header tags seo installed with the <link rel="canonical"> tag pointing to /index.php

also using

Ultimate SEO URLs v2.0b

on a windows IIS 6 server (someone else picked the server from the hosting provider)

[♥mdtaylorlrim]

Is your home page without /index.php different than your home page with /index.php?

[♥FWR Media]

sorry if this is the wrong place to put this.

 

i would like to setup a 301 redirect

 

for both non www.

and www. without the index.php at the end

 

the website had an old html page saying site under construction, which is no longer so, (and snce been removed) and google has listed that,

and if you click on it it goes to the home page (without /index.php

 

but the ome page is also accessable at /index.php

 

so i would like the website to goto the www. one with index.php at the end

 

i got header tags seo installed with the <link rel="canonical"> tag pointing to /index.php

also using

Ultimate SEO URLs v2.0b

on a windows IIS 6 server (someone else picked the server from the hosting provider)

 

Are you on PHP 5.2+?

 

If so I recommend the following which I belive will benefit you greatly.

 

2) Install KissMT apart from being rediculously simple to install it is also powerful and will add canonical tags to your pages to irradicate duplicate content.

 

1) Install Ultimate Seo Urls 5 this works out of the box for IIS servers using the "standard urls" and if you have an IIS module the rewrite version will work too. The only issue I see here is that it will 301 redirect correctly any osC or seo urls "url" EXCEPT the old 2.0b windows versions.

[puddlec]

to answer both questions

 

both the non /index.php and index.php are the same page

 

i am using php 5.2. +

 

i did install Ultimate Seo Urls 5 at first but i found it did not include the header tags.

i am using at the moment header tags V 3.1.8 seo by jack.

(when turned off it would appear)

 

just need to check before installing, would the KissMT work properly with Ultimate Seo Urls 5

[♥FWR Media]

to answer both questions

 

both the non /index.php and index.php are the same page

 

i am using php 5.2. +

 

i did install Ultimate Seo Urls 5 at first but i found it did not include the header tags.

i am using at the moment header tags V 3.1.8 seo by jack.

(when turned off it would appear)

 

just need to check before installing, would the KissMT work properly with Ultimate Seo Urls 5

 

Well .. it is obviously up to you what you install.

 

USU5 works fine on Windows servers. Header tags breaks with path based uris, which the standard uri method is in USU5.

 

So you can either do what I suggested or stick with what you have and code in a redirect.

[puddlec]

Well .. it is obviously up to you what you install.

 

USU5 works fine on Windows servers. Header tags breaks with path based uris, which the standard uri method is in USU5.

 

So you can either do what I suggested or stick with what you have and code in a redirect.

 

idealy i would like some kind of header tags addon within the site, not fussed which one,

as by doing this i get the <link rel="canonical"> and different title names for each product

[♥FWR Media]

idealy i would like some kind of header tags addon within the site, not fussed which one,

as by doing this i get the <link rel="canonical"> and different title names for each product

 

Then, especially as you are on a Windows server I recommend the two I suggested in the post above, USU5, KissMT.

[puddlec]

Then, especially as you are on a Windows server I recommend the two I suggested in the post above, USU5, KissMT.

 

OK, i get that installed.

and thanks for the help.

as i am fairly new to oscommerce i was not to sure what the best way to get around this problem

[♥FWR Media]

OK, i get that installed.

and thanks for the help.

as i am fairly new to oscommerce i was not to sure what the best way to get around this problem

 

If you have any questions or run into any problems: -

 

The support thread for Ultimate Seo Urls 5.

 

The support thread for KissMT

[puddlec]

installed both the sugested modules, and both work fine,

 

but i am still able to view both the index/php and non index.php homepage (which is the same page)

 

google has previously listed the non /index.php (with different description saying) version of the page, as well as the index.php

 

and all pages are linked to /index.php

(as are the sitemap and xml sitemap)

google webmasters is setup to non/index.php

so will the <link rel="canonical"> tell google to replace the non /index.php page with the index.php

 

or becuase all the sitemaps link to /index.php version of the page it will keep the old descrtiption in

[♥FWR Media]

installed both the sugested modules, and both work fine,

 

but i am still able to view both the index/php and non index.php homepage (which is the same page)

 

google has previously listed the non /index.php (with different description saying) version of the page, as well as the index.php

 

and all pages are linked to /index.php

 

so will the

 

View source, there is now a canonical element that points to index.php. This will solve any duplicate content.

[♥mdtaylorlrim]

but i am still able to view both the index/php and non index.php homepage (which is the same page)

I don't see where this is an issue. This is NOT duplicate content, it is the same content referenced directly and allowing the server to decide what the default index page is to be.

 

 

As far as Google having your pages indexed as www.domain.com and domain.com that could be an issue. However, I would think that you would NOT want to put any redirects in there as Google may then keep your site indexed both ways. Create an account on Google Webmaster Tools you can simply tell Google which to use and it will drop the other. Let the search engines allow the bad links to expire and they will no longer be indexed in that manner. If you simply use redirects then you are relying on Google to make the decision whether or not to not index the redirected page or not. I'd rather not leave all the decisions up to Google when thy give us the tools to do it correctly.

 

But then, I'm no SEO expert...

[♥FWR Media]

I don't see where this is an issue. This is NOT duplicate content, it is the same content referenced directly and allowing the server to decide what the default index page is to be.

 

 

As far as Google having your pages indexed as www.domain.com and domain.com that could be an issue. However, I would think that you would NOT want to put any redirects in there as Google may then keep your site indexed both ways. Create an account on Google Webmaster Tools you can simply tell Google which to use and it will drop the other. Let the search engines allow the bad links to expire and they will no longer be indexed in that manner. If you simply use redirects then you are relying on Google to make the decision whether or not to not index the redirected page or not. I'd rather not leave all the decisions up to Google when thy give us the tools to do it correctly.

 

But then, I'm no SEO expert...

 

No access as www.mysite.com and mysite.com/index.php to the same page is duplicate content.

 

The best way to handle this is with the canonical element as used by KissMT which is exactly why I suggested it.

[puddlec]

I don't see where this is an issue. This is NOT duplicate content, it is the same content referenced directly and allowing the server to decide what the default index page is to be.

 

 

As far as Google having your pages indexed as www.domain.com and domain.com that could be an issue. However, I would think that you would NOT want to put any redirects in there as Google may then keep your site indexed both ways. Create an account on Google Webmaster Tools you can simply tell Google which to use and it will drop the other. Let the search engines allow the bad links to expire and they will no longer be indexed in that manner. If you simply use redirects then you are relying on Google to make the decision whether or not to not index the redirected page or not. I'd rather not leave all the decisions up to Google when thy give us the tools to do it correctly.

 

But then, I'm no SEO expert...

all my google results are for the www. version and none for without www.

 

i just needed to make sure that the search engines would not see

www.domain.com/index.php

www.domain.com

as different pages

and when if it goes to

www.domain.com

it would not have a problem with the canonical tag, and update its listing

[♥mdtaylorlrim]

No access as www.mysite.com and mysite.com/index.php to the same page is duplicate content.

 

Just so I understand for myself, just where is the duplicate content. At his site or at Google?

[puddlec]

carried on from my last post

 

and as the website had an old html page saying site under construction, which is no longer so, (and snce been removed) and google has listed that,

and if you click on it it goes to the home page (without /index.php (which is the same as /index.php one)

 

and as all the sitemaps point to index.php and not without index.php i was not sure if google would update it's listing, even through i got the <link rel="canonical"> tag

as i do not know if it would get its infro from the sitemap on the website or through the sitemap xml file or by a normal crawl

[puddlec]

Just so I understand for myself, just where is the duplicate content. At his site or at Google?

 

it is at google by searching for the domain name directly it would list both

wwww.domain.com and www.domain/index.php

[♥FWR Media]

carried on from my last post

 

and as the website had an old html page saying site under construction, which is no longer so, (and snce been removed) and google has listed that,

and if you click on it it goes to the home page (without /index.php (which is the same as /index.php one)

 

and as all the sitemaps point to index.php and not without index.php i was not sure if google would update it's listing, even through i got the <link rel="canonical"> tag

as i do not know if it would get its infro from the sitemap on the website or through the sitemap xml file or by a normal crawl

 

The canonical element is effectively a "soft" 301 redirect and Goggle accepts it as such so even if you have internal linking that points to www.mysite.com/ the canonical tag will ensure that Google only recognises www.mysite.com/index.php as being the canonical version.

[Hotclutch]

carried on from my last post

 

and as the website had an old html page saying site under construction, which is no longer so, (and snce been removed) and google has listed that,

and if you click on it it goes to the home page (without /index.php (which is the same as /index.php one)

 

and as all the sitemaps point to index.php and not without index.php i was not sure if google would update it's listing, even through i got the <link rel="canonical"> tag

as i do not know if it would get its infro from the sitemap on the website or through the sitemap xml file or by a normal crawl

 

You should try to remove the index.php url from Google's index as there might be some ranking spread between that and www.yoursite.com/

[♥FWR Media]

You should try to remove the index.php url from Google's index as there might be some ranking spread between that and www.yoursite.com/

 

No need as there will now be a canonical element and Google will recognise the index.php version as the canonical.