Don't understand this ... :-(

[BizDetox]

Darin has a good point. Set your preferences

Also Rel=canonical

Darin if i am not mistaken maybe you can shed some light , dont both pages still get indexed even if its redirected with a 301? I am sure a rel=canonical will solve the issue !

Best Wishes,

Hampig M

BizDetox

[hgw57]

Thanks, yes, the preferred domain ist set to www

[hgw57]

Thanks, I've set since a couple of weeks

<link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/](view-source:http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/)" />

That should be fine?

[BizDetox]

Yes, how long ago did you set this?

Has google since indexed your page

[hgw57]

Yes, thanks,

I forgot to mention, this was set some weeks ago and in Google's cached cersion the rel=canonical tag ist in the source code, so they should habe the newest page.

Just edited the post above a few seconds after your question

[DarinPirkey]

Yes, both can get indexed especially if preferences and 301s weren't in place the last time Google crawled.  I've noticed it takes time for Google to use the canonical on a page.  I've seen it take 4 or 5 crawls for it to take effect correctly.  But don't forget it's just a suggestion and not a directive.  I think Google wants to make sure that it's in the best interest of the site before it adheres to it (just a guess)

Don't forget too that Google will only crawl a portion of a site when it crawls (especially for bigger sites) to make sure it doesn't take up to much bandwidth on your server.  The home page may not have been crawled since the element has been put in.

[BizDetox]

Yes Agreed. I guess its a waiting game for him to see how effective it has been placed.

But in my instances rel=canonical always solved the problem for dup content.

Thanks Darin

[hgw57]

Thanks for your support! I think the last tool reports show a little improvement.

But one more information or possible problem(?): On the same server, in another directory, another site of the client is hosted, which has a very good Google standing for 6 or 7 years.

The HTML structure is similar, and it depends on the same CMS and similar CSS.

So could this be a problem for Google? Should the site be moved to another provider?

Once again thx

Guenter

[DarinPirkey]

Matt Cutts talked about this a few years back....let me find it.

Here it is.

Basically where your server is (minus county specific) doesn't matter to Google.

Google understands that people share servers and it's not that important in the scheme of things.  What does matter is server up time.

[hgw57]

Thanks!