"You have not standardized your default pages"

[Jo@apartyshop]

After doing a few checks on the website I got the following message;

"You have not standardized your default pages" meaning the following versions of your url return a 200/OK Header, which may cause duplicate content issues. The following extensions work:
http://www.apartyshop.co.uk/index.html
http://www.apartyshop.co.uk/

Anyone able to explain this to me....slowly?

Note: We already have a 301 re-direct in place from non-WWW to WWW

Thanks in advance

Peter

[I-CC]

This means that the view is the same but 2 different ways of getting to it, so could be duplicated. Use canonical to fix to either index.html or without.

[Jo@apartyshop]

So is it basically a case of a 301 re-direct as we did for non-www to www?

[I-CC]

No - you need to add code to your pages that says what filename should be used for the page for search engines..

EG:

<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.apartyshop.co.uk/index.html" />

This tells Google that if it finds you page by www.apartyshop.co.uk then to index it with the index.html so no duplicate listing as you have told them what page filename to use.

[Jo@apartyshop]

Suddenly out of my depth

[Chunkford]

So is it basically a case of a 301 re-direct as we did for non-www to www?

In this circumstance, yes you can Jo.

Just use this code under your www code in the .htaccess file, replacing YOUDOMAIN.COM with your site url if you want to use the non index.html version and you are using www.

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^.*/index\.html
RewriteRule ^(.*)index.html$ http://www.YOURDOMAIN.COM/$1 [R=301,L]

[I-CC]

Try placing this just above the </head> in the relevant outter layouts.

Two blocks provided:

1st one works for section pages and store top level section - this one overcomes the issue where Google indexes the cgi bin, thus you can get duplicate results because it has found the same page via the search, links and also by virtue of the real page - so this tells Google if you found it via a cgi-bin link then use the page filename I have provided here.

2nd one works for the home page.

This could be extended more for the other Brochure pages, but quickly threw this together so if anyone else wants to expand on it, by all means please do.

<actinic:block if="%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22PageType%22%20%2f%3e%20%3d%3d%20%22Section%22%20OR%20%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22IsStoreFrontPage%22%20%2f%3e" >
<link rel='canonical' href='<actinic:variable name="CatalogURL" /><actinic:variable name="SectionPageName" />' />
</actinic:block>
<actinic:block if="%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22IsBrochureHomePage%22%20%2f%3e">
<link rel='canonical' href='http://www.apartyshop.co.uk/' />
</actinic:block>

[Chunkford]

Seriously, why bother adding code for people to use when you've just "quickly threw" it together and basically haven't tested it?
Something like this can absolutely destroy a site if done incorrectly.

The canonical tag is interpreted as a hint/advice by the search engines, when in this instance is a 100% clear cut case.
It's easier and creates an absolute signal if you use the .htaccess route to 301 redirect the URLs.

[leehack]

If it is genuinely required to tell a search engine that www.mydomain.com is the same page as www.mydomain.com/index.html then things really are a little slow online. Given that situation exists on 99.9% of sites, i think it fair to say that Google will be aware of this, don't you?

Section pages i can understand, but seriously the site home page?

[I-CC]

This is not the first time this has come across my table with regards to Google telling sites that they have duplicate content which always come down to 2 things:

1. index.html being found as its own index.html and under the homepage or folder without adding index.html.

2. Section pages being picked up under its own filename and then under a different cgi-bin/XX0000001.pl? blah blah reference to it.

I could also forgive Google for the sections being highlighted as that is distinctly separate paths to the same content, but the homepage or any page within a folder called index.* seems excessive, but I guess until Google play fair then if people get it reported to them from Google that its duplicate content, then guess we have to try and overcome it - however much of a pain or daft thing it may seem.

BTW - Canonical is far from being dangerous and a potential cause to destroy things, whereas a single typo in a htaccess file could switch an entire site off, or redirect the top level section page to the home page if incorrectly applied, or many other things. A question was asked and suggestions made - htaccess is the choice of some and I gave an alternate method where those following this thread in days, months or years to come will be able to achieve the desired result without having to resort to manual ftp or htaccess files if they dont know what they are doing with that side of it.

Hey ho - laters all.

[Chunkford]

If it is genuinely required to tell a search engine that www.mydomain.com is the same page as www.mydomain.com/index.html then things really are a little slow online. Given that situation exists on 99.9% of sites, i think it fair to say that Google will be aware of this, don't you?

Section pages i can understand, but seriously the site home page?

the index.html or index.php or index.cfm or index.asp etc and the non index version are treated as seperate URLs each with their own profile.
When people link (including internal links) to the homepage, which is the most linked to page, they will use whatever URL they like - in this case, index.html or non index.html
To ensure you get maximum benefit you 301 redirect one to the other to consolidate the power.
But of course, you already knew that

Be interesting to get a poshed version sorted as it is useful.

At least it makes your site better than 99.9% of all the other sites on the internet

BTW - Canonical is far from being dangerous and a potential cause to destroy things, whereas a single typo in a htaccess file could switch an entire site off, or redirect the top level section page to the home page if incorrectly applied, or many other things.

Excuse me while I just read through this again - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/catastrop...nonicalization
Tbey seem both can be an issue if you used incorrectly.
My point is that your code was thrown together and produces an error.
You posted it on a public forum and invited others to use it. That's all

[leehack]

Matt Cutts himself writes Google will self canonfghndfnd without any direction from site owner. So lets say for arguments sake a site owner wants to have www.mydomain.com cangwrhwrthwrh and not www.mydomain.com/index.html, where would you put the tag? There is no physical page, so by default the index.html surely has to inherit that status and if not, what does it matter which one they choose, they're identical.

I fully agree with using a www version on all URLs, i have no problem with 301 redirects, what i don't buy is differentiating these 'different' home pages has any real worth.

I realise there is a non canasdgfhnefnbery tag. For home pages it just seems like a right merry dance to me, product pages I totally get it. I've been lucky enough to work on and see a number of multi million pound actinic sites, i honestly cannot recall one of them ever needing to do this.

Often the worst thing they do with duplicate content is drop one and choose the best themselves, this seems to work by default for most of the web. This sounds like scaremongering to me because it's a scarey word that noone can spell. A RLOC IMO.

One thing i really dislike about this tag, actually there are two, a) a little knowledge is dangerous, a site owner attempting this could create all sorts of pain for themselves (bit like the bain of my life - SSL) and b) If Google notices duplicate content and chooses which page itself, what happens if they chosoe a different one to you, do you not risk choosing a page that Google actually prefers less?

Let's say page a ranks #8 and is canonconosfyhuh
Page b ranks #3 and is not cansafjahsfkjheiu

Do you not get a situation where you could be asking to have the least successful page listed as the main one, in that situation would they still rank page a by page b's rank?

SEO companies must love the word canjdfosagliush, a chance to fleece a load of unsuspecting or worried site owners, I apologise to the 1 in 30 decent SEO companies out there, this is not aimed at you.

[Chunkford]

I apologise to the 1 in 30 decent SEO companies out there, this is not aimed at you.

That probably explains why there are only a handful of sites doing then

<I will grab my coat and leave>

[globalee]

canonical URLS

<actinic:block if="%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22IsNotPreviewMode%22%20%2f%3e" >      
<actinic:block if="%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22PageType%22%20%2f%3e%3d%3dBrochure" >
        <actinic:block if="%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22PageType%22%20%2f%3e%3d%3dBrochure%20AND%20%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22IsBrochureHomePage%22%20%2f%3e" ><link rel="canonical" href="http://www.YOURDOMAIN.co.uk" /></actinic:block>  
        <actinic:block if="%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22PageType%22%20%2f%3e%3d%3dBrochure%20AND%20%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22IsBrochureHomePage%22%20%2f%3e%21%3dtrue" ><link rel="canonical" href="http://www.YOURDOMAINco.uk/acatalog/"/></actinic:block>
</actinic:block>
        <actinic:block if="%3cactinic%3avariable%20name%3d%22PageType%22%20%2f%3e%3d%3dSection" ><link rel="canonical" href="http://www.YOURDOMAIN.co.uk/acatalog/<actinic:variable name="SectionPageName" />"/></actinic:block>
</actinic:block>

THis works fine, you dont need it in the checkout pages, and you also need to change the acatalog in the URL if you have changed your root folder, anyway just paste this in the head area of your page, this is good for brochure, index and catalog pages, tested and working just fine for canonical urls.

i got a quick question, if anyone can help, htacess redirect the

www.domainname.com/acatalog/ to www[dot]domainname[dot]com