RKG Logo 434-978-4300

Here’s a five minute tip which can boost your organic rankings significantly: remove duplicate pages in the search engines by handling your own URL cannonicalization.

In plain English: can your visitors surf your site using either “http://yourbrand.com” or “http://www.yourbrand.com”?

If they can, that’s bad. Go and try it now. If you can surf your site with or without the “www” prefix, your server is probably generating duplicate content (as the same page can be reached with two different URLs), which brings down your natural search rank.

Google will try to guess which of the duplicate pages is primary — they call this “URL cannonicalization.” You’re better off cannonicalizing yourself, by having your server not create duplicate content.

The right approach is to pick a URL style — most sites opt for “with the www prefix” — and when a visitor reaches your site via the other form, issue a 301 “permanently moved” redirect to the correct URL. Make sure this redirect is 301, not 302.

To check if you are doing it right, there are many header checking tools on the web. For example, if you type “rimmkaufman.com” into a header checker tool (this one, for example, they all do the same thing), you receive this short report


Checked URL: http://rimmkaufman.com
Status: 301
Location: http://www.rimmkaufman.com/
HTTP Status Code - 301 Permanently Moved

If you’re not handling this correctly, ask your web server administrator to fix it right away — that should take just a few minutes, tops. The exact fix depends on whether you’re running Apache, Microsoft, etc. You can search for 301 redirect www how to to see the various approaches.

While the fix is fast, it takes time for you to see improvements in your rankings. You will. Over time, you should see the number of indexed pages from your site in the engines cut in half (as the duplicates go away), while the rank of the remaining pages increase.

Think about other places your server may be creating duplicate content (persistent session ids in URLs, persistent tracking codes in URLs, www.yourbrand.com vs. www.yourbrand.com/index.html, etc) and come up a with a plan to remove those too, where possible. And then think about near duplicate pages, too.

You’ll be better off with the search engines when each URL corresponds to a high-quality, well-written, unique page.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

Comments

  1. Ken, January 11, 2007:

    Thank you for this useful information. What do you think about the prefered domain setting in the Google Webmaster Tools? If Google asks me which one of the two URLs it should use, why would Google penalize my rankings after I set it to http://www.yourbrand.com?

  2. Alan Rimm-Kaufman, January 12, 2007:

    It shouldn’t, if everything works right. But machines make mistakes, so handling the “www” vs. “non-www” yourself is better, imho, if you can. (And not all engines/spiders are as smart as Google’s.)

    Dupe content goes beyond just the “www” issue — many sites have the same showing up twice due to how they handle param tags — for example, http://www.brand.com/article/view.asp?artid=145 and http://www.brand.com/article/view.asp?artid=145&print=1.

    The “www” issue is the tip of the iceberg, but important, but not the whole story.

Your Comment

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2007/01/11/improve-seo-results-in-five-minutes-cannonicalize-yourself/trackback/

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Mark Ballard: Cory, I don’t see this as an SEO v. PPC issue. The core of my argument is that CTRs are lower primarily due to misleading...
  • Cory Grassell: What are your thoughts on stats that suggest consumers are more apt to click on organic search results than PPC results? As a...
  • George Michie: Kevin, Marc, thanks for your comments. Help is coming, but not the solution. There are a number of instances when the CTR on the...
  • Marc Adelman: George, You have been an advocate of “the advanced control option” for years now. Depressing right YEARS! Eh…listen...
  • Kevin Hill: Is what they really need is a fourth match type. Here’s google’s help documentation on broad match: This is the default...
  • Kevin Micalizzi, Dimdim Web Conferencing: Jim (& George)- We still offer a free version of Dimdim. Just click Sign Up Now at the top of the...
  • Tomas: indeed, i can’t talk about it either… :)
  • Philip Price: Thank you for the RegHack, it worked for me, tho at first when i made the reg file with the information i copied from above i also...
  • George Michie: Sorry Jim, this post was written in 2007. Apparently some of those products are gone.
  • Jim: Hey, I checked two products like dimdim and cutepdf but none is free. What are you talking about free and open source?
  • George Michie: If they keep hearing the same message, and seeing evidence in the data to back it up, something will have to give. There is hope on...
  • Tomas: I’ve been having the same argument with Google for months now and in the end there does seem to be a feature in the algorithm that...
  • George Michie: Doesn’t have to be, it can be intra-adgroup as well.
  • Josh: George – I take it you’re referencing a scenario where your exact-match keywords are not listed as negative exact match keywords...
  • George Michie: Melissa, you’re right, it’s always happened to varying degrees, particularly since the advent of extended broad match....

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,877

Administration