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

[SEOKeith]

I always use rel="canonical"

[Copstead]

You should set up the correct Canonicalization rewrites at the server level with IIS or .htaccess.  (Not sure which one you have).  If you know what type of sever you are on, then you can find all the correct rewrites.  (www, non www, lowercase, trailing slash / , etc.)

For example, here is a great post if you have IIS. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/what-every-seo-should-know-about-iis

And you should also use rel=canonical tags.

[brianhughes]

Thanks a lot guys this is some great information. Let me get this straight.

Is solving this issue with the code below a bad practice?

<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine on</ifmodule>

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]

If it's not a bad practice and I implement the code to stop the issue, you are saying I should still use a rel=canonical tag to prevent scraping?

[KeriMorgret]

Generally, if you can fix it with code, that tends to be a bit better than the canonical tag, from my understanding. I've emailed Dr. Pete and asked him to contribute to this thread as well, as he's an expert on canonical tags.

[brianhughes]

Thank you Keri, that's what I'm thinking but I want to make sure. Thank you for messaging Dr. Pete, I hope maybe he can expound on this.

[SEOKeith]

The rewrite rule above is not bad practice, it will fix the issue with your URL's

However it is good practice to use the rel=canonical tag on your site additionally to prevent any other duplicate content issues.

In short the rel=canonical tag tells Google which URL you wish to use, preventing Google from thinking you have duplicate content if multiple URL's exist for the same page.

[brianhughes]

Thank you SEOKeith! I definitely want to make sure I don't use any bad practices to fix this issue and thank you for clarifying that about the code.

So if I apply the code and fix the issue from the server by making the URL www.example.com

I would then add the rel=canonical tag to prevent scraping.

Would this be the correct URL to put in the tag?

[SEOKeith]

Brian, if you 301 the example.com to www.example.com that will get rid of the duplicate URL issue server side. (this will resolve your current duplicate content issue).

Additionally I recommend you add the rel=canonical it will prevent other potential duplicate content issues that may arise and is considered good practice to implement.

The tag looks correct, note the space after the domain in quotes:

Are you using a CMS ?

[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.