Splitting Page Authority with two URLs for the same page.

[JoaoPdaCosta-WBR]

Hello guys,

My website is currently holding two different URLs for the same page and I am under the impression such set up is dividing my Page Authority and Link Juice.

We currently have the following page with both URLs below:

www.wbresearch.com/soldiertechnologyusa/home.aspx
www.wbresearch.com/soldiertechnologyusa/

Analysing the page authority and backlinks I identified that we are splitting the amount of backlinks (links from sites, social media and therefore authority).

"/home.aspx"
PA: 67
Linking Root Domains: 52
Total Links: 272

"/"
PA: 64
Linking Root Domains: 29
Total Links: 128

I am under the impression that if the URLs were the same we would maximise our backlinks and therefore page authority.

My Question: How can I fix this? Should I have a 301 redirect from the page "/" to the "/home.aspx" therefore passing the authority and link juice of “/” directly to “/homes.aspx”?

Trying to gather thoughts and ideas on this, suggestions are much appreciated?

Thanks!

[DukeTanson]

Hi Joao,

I think you probably need to establish if the those two urls came about due to a cms or system issue. I ask this because some cms system create duplicate/different  urls for the same page and the good ones have a canonical set up to avoid duplicate content.  If it is a system or cms issue then get a canonical set up. Use screeming frog to run a crawl to see if i picks up any duplicate urls. Currently, your homepage runs the risk of duplicate content penalty.

If its not a system wide issue, then set up a 301 redirect. Think of the home page that people will remember easily and can share on social media platforms without part of it being cut of due to length.

All the best

Duke

[gcdtechnologies]

Hi Joao, some good advice from Duke here. A 301 redirect will solve this duplicate problem and help to consolidate the authority. However it's worth investigating to see what caused the problem and whether it is a wider issue, in which case canonicals might be more appropriate. Good luck!

[JoaoPdaCosta-WBR]

Hi Duke and Alice,

Thank you for your both replies. Very helpful.

We currently do a rel="canonical" from the page "/" to the "/home.aspx", which should avoid the content duplication issue.

I have seen mix opinions on where to use rel="canonical" vs 301 redirect. Just found a Matt Cutts' video about that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA)

Alice - I take that it might be better to do a 301 redirect than a rel="canonical", as per the video. What do think? should I leave the rel-canonical or try to move to a 301?

Cheers guys!

[DukeTanson]

I think it generally depends on the cause of the duplicate. If its system issue then you'll forever be creating 301s for your urls. In that case its best to avoid having to do the 301 and stick with canonical. With canonical are telling the search engine to only index one version of the url.

Both 301 and canonical have their uses but the choice should depend on the issue and what you are trying to achieve. Hope this helps?

Duke

[gcdtechnologies]

Hi Joao, yes a 301 redirect would be preferable to a canonical. A 301 is more "absolute" - it lets search engines know that they should ignore the redirected page. A canonical is more like a piece of advice for search engines.

Canonicals are useful if you don't have the development skills or resources to implement a 301, and they can also be used when it's not practical to add a 301 to lots of web pages.

In short - use a 301 if practical

[JoaoPdaCosta-WBR]

Great help.

Thanks both!