Is there an easier way from the server to prevent duplicate page content?

[brianhughes]

Thank you SEOKeith, what would be the difference between using a 301 in the .htaccess verses the code Ryan suggested <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">?</ifmodule>

Also if I use the 301 redirect in the .htaccess would it cover this issue site wide?

Okay so the space needs to be there.

No, I don't use a CMS?

[SEOKeith]

Brian, it's the same thing just a different method both 301.

No it would not cover the issues site wide only for the home page.

CMS = Content Management System (an example would be Wordpress or Drupal).

You should still do the rel="canonical" site wide (on each page).

All make sense ?

[brianhughes]

SEOKeith, the problem is sitewide, all 52 pages. I was hoping to solve the problem in the server and avoid coding each page. But from what I'm gathering is, even if I use the 301 redirect I should still add the rel="canonical" on each page to avoid scraping. This tells the SE that this page is the only page to index and crawl.

Lol, sorry I didn't recognize the acronym. Yes, I have a site that is through Wordpress and one that is through Joomla. The one that I'm having issues with is not through a CMS though.

[SEOKeith]

I recommend you update each page, note the rel canonical tag will be different for each page. And 50 pages should take you less than 15 mins

[brianhughes]

Thank you again SEOKeith, I understand what has to be done. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what needed to be done. Yes, the rel canonical tag will reflect whatever the page is I'm adding it. Since I didn't get the errors for it I never added it to my other sites; so now I have to it for all of them. Fun...

[Dr-Pete]

Just to clarify, the rewrite that Ryan is proposing IS a 301-redirect (see the "R=301") - it's just one way to implement it. Done right, it can be used sitewide.

It's perfectly viable to also use canonicals (and I definitely think they're great to have on the home-page, for example), but I think the 301 is more standard practice here. It's best for search crawlers AND visitors to see your canonical URL (www vs. non-www, whichever you choose). That leads people to link to the "proper" version, bookmark it, promote it on social, etc.

Make sure, too, to use the canonical version internally. It's amazing how often people 301-redirect to "www." but then link to the non-www version internally, or vise-versa. Consistent signals are important.

[Dr-Pete]

Expounding is what I do Other people use different words for it...

[SEOKeith]

Sorry I just read this again, the 301 will fix the URL issue site wide.

[SEOKeith]

Hi Dr Pete, Would correcting the current issue with a 301 and adding the rel=canonical tags to each page be the best option? My thought being any future duplicate content issues that may occur (not caused from this issue) would be avoided.

[BobLongman]

I'm still getting a bad canonical problem, even with every page having a rel="canonical". It even shows up in SEOmoz's stats, with it indexing 300+ pages when there's only 180-odd.  Trouble is, the .htaccess file says "FrontPage" not Apache.  Would your .htaccess thingy for Apache work there?  And is it the .htaccess that's in the url's folder with the rest of the site's regular files, or one that's in a prev. folder?

[brianhughes]

Dr. Peter, thank you for clarifying this. I do see the R=301 now but I didn't see it before.

That's what I figured. Is their a preferred 301 code to use?

Yes, I will be sure to use it internally as well. I can see where that would be a mess. Thank you again for sharing your expertise.

[brianhughes]

Thank you for expounding on this issue I thought it fit.

[brianhughes]

Make sure you have a space after the second quotation:

[AdoptionHelp]

Robert check this article out re: frontpage and htaccess

Frontpage is an html editor that helps you build a site. Apache is a server that site can run on. It sounds like you have both.

You'll want to edit the .htaccess file in the root folder of your website, wherever the file for your homepage sits.

[Dr-Pete]

In most cases, I don't find sitewide canonical tags to really be necessary, but if they're done right, they can't hurt. The trick is that people often screw them up (and bad canonicals can be really bad). I do like one on the home-page, because it sweeps up all the weird variants that are so common for home pages.

[Dr-Pete]

As long as the tactic you use returns a proper 301, there's really no way that's better than any other. Ryan's approach works perfectly well for Apache-hosted sites.

[brianhughes]

If that's the case Dr. Pete, that saves me from having to add the tag to 51 pages. I already have one on the homepage. Thank you.

[brianhughes]

Okay, so the code variant will rely on the type of server?

[Dr-Pete]

Yes, a 301-redirect is almost always a server-level directive. It's not a tag or HTML element. You can create them with code (in the header of the page), but that's typically harder and only for special cases.

[brianhughes]

I've never done one of these yet so I will Google how to do it. I'm waiting to find out the type of server it is.