index.html and duplicate SEO issues

[Stereo Steve]

It seems to me that most actinic websites and the main URL www.website.co.uk/ and also an identical page at www.website.co.uk/index.html. Google hardly ever indexes the latter one but I've noticed that it often has page rank, in our case, a toolbar page rank equal to the main URL.

So, what's going on here? Is this page nicking page rank from the main page and should it be got rid of? Why is it there and how is it generated?

I know that having www and non www pages can cause big problems and I've read some stuff on index.html but can't get any clear info.

Any thoughts? I did try editing my .ht... file to set a 301 and redirect it to the main URL but it just threw up server errors on both URL's.

[Stereo Steve]

While we're on the subject, I can also view my site without the www altogether. Should I be concerned about this?

[leehack]

With PR, shop top page is usually 1 less on PR than the home page IME.

I don't see anything wrong with being able to access your site as non-www, your main concerns in this area are to set up actinic with the full www version and to also tell search engines which version you want to use.

[Stereo Steve]

I'm just struggling to understand how I came to have .co.uk/ when the home page is set to co.uk/index.html. Why is it there and should I be concerned that they are identical? They both have a similar toolbar page rank.

I have set webmaster tools to use the ".co.uk/" version and it does so and indexes this page and not the .co.uk/index.html. If I should be concerned, how do I get rid of .co.uk/index.html and have the home page just set to .co.uk/

Back to the user guide I think.

Oh, and what about mod rewrites to 301 all 'non www' to 'www' ? I notice SVP have this on their non www site. If you put the www in it just redirects back. Good, bad or a waste of energy?

[RuralWeb]

It seems to me that most actinic websitesIn truth ALL html based websites have an index.html or htm page - it the way things work

[leehack]

Sorry i misread your post, i thought you was referring to site root plus shop top, you are in fact just talking about the main home page.

They are the essentially the same thing, the main part is that if i go straight to your .co.uk/ it finds the index page for me by default OR i can go direct to the page by typing it in. It's all to do with the pages that are checked for (by default) when you put in a URL with no page name, index pages are searched for by default at folder level.

I never have a link to index.html or index.htm as the home page link on my sites, because someone accessing your root, will lose all viewed states on links etc. when they access your index.html page - even though they are the same thing!

Having a 301 in place - i see no problem at all - probably a good idea.

[marke]

Am I missing somtheing or are website.co.uk and website.co.uk/index.html not in fact the same page rather than duplicates. So far as I understand, when the web server is set up you set a default home page. This usually means that the web server will usually interprete /index.html as where you mean when you type in website.co.uk. I think that for most hosts, the server is set up to recognise, for example, /index.html, /index.htm and if you are microsoft then default.html or default.html. Then I think about PHP pages and that actually makes me think that index.anything may be OK. In principle you can set any file name to appear when you just type website.co.uk but there are a number which site builders usually use by default.
Whatever, the point is that I think both pages are in fact the same page and that although they show up as different pages in Google, Google is wise enough to know that in this particular case they are the same because you have to name the home page something.
May be wrong about this but thats my understanding!

[leehack]

You are absolutely right Mark, they are exactly the same page and Google is certainly clever enough to know this. The main point to note is that your browser will treat them both as different pages, which is where you lose link states etc. even though it's an identical page.

PR should be identical on both as you are looking at exactly the same page.

[RuralWeb]

Am I missing somtheing Not at all - its just steve off on another SEO wild goose chase:D

[leehack]

Not at all - its just steve off on another SEO wild goose chase:D
LOL, poor Steve and his SEO quest. :D

[Stereo Steve]

OK, I'm starting to get it. So no big deal for SEO then.

Lee, you mean you set all your 'home' and clickable logo etc. links to www.site.co.uk? They are defaulted to www.site.co.uk/index.html. I have actually done this on the logo and top home link but I notice the sidebar home link is still index.html.

I guess they should all be set to the one that google indexes? In my case .co.uk/

As for the rewrite, I used this in .htaccess:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^website.co.uk
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.website.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L]

Obviously replacing 'website' with the URL. You need an apache server for this one I think and you may need to turn something on at their end but it just worked for me. You type in the url http://website.com and it takes you straight to http:/www.website.com and also works for all url's on the site which is pretty handy. So you type http://website.com/acatalog/puple-y-fronts.html and it redirects automatically to http://www.website.com/acatalog/puple-y-fronts.html

Thats got to be a good thing hasn't it? All those non www pages have page rank after all.

[RuralWeb]

poor Steve and his SEO questAt least he keeps us entertained.

[RuralWeb]

Thats got to be a good thing hasn't it?OMG - its a duck hunt now:D

[Stereo Steve]

Hey, I have actually taken on a local hotshoe who is reviewing the site as we speak and will consult with me next week. He's not flash and he's a good solid guy so I'm going the pro route after all.

Just figured he'd be up tonight working on it so I thought I'd start fiddling with .htaccess so he earns his money.

[leehack]

I never (i'm sure, there is one or two to prove that wrong here and there, but....) link to the index.html file, i never even write in the URL, but i cannot discuss this in the forum as Jonty starts arguing with me. You can find it out by looking at the source code on my home page, i've laid it out neatly so you can read it.

A 301 rewrite can have no real adverse effect on anything at all as far as i know, so would certainly seem sensible if that's what floats your boat.

[leehack]

Hey, I have actually taken on a local hotshoe who is reviewing the site as we speak and will consult with me next week. He's not flash and he's a good solid guy so I'm going the pro route after all.

Just figured he'd be up tonight working on it so I thought I'd start fiddling with .htaccess so he earns his money.
I hope the first thing he tells you to do is get a decent logo, that really is bloody awful you tight sod!

[Stereo Steve]

It certainly does float my boat. I saw it in action on SVP's site and thought how clever it was. As I have been over there and done a lot of business with them I know that they have a geek with an IQ of 6740 locked in a room turning out code to do all sorts of things with courier labels and stuff so assumed this was beyond me.

The fact I have managed it after half a box of vino makes me even happier.

[marke]

Do you really need a 301 redirect to point all the http://website.co.uk/x to www.website.co.uk/x ? Isn't this done automatically if the MX records point at the same IP or am I missing something?

[Stereo Steve]

I hope the first thing he tells you to do is get a decent logo, that really is bloody awful you tight sod!

Point taken Lee. I run a good business and we sell a whole load of stuff every day but web design (art) is certainly not my strong point. Part of the plan for the next site is to take on a design company who can do the arty side for us and create all the logos and banners we need plus themed stuff like xmas and so on.

I do accept this is a failing but it's not top priority. The site converts at around 8% of uniques at the mo so it's working OK when we get them through the door. What it needs is more traffic and that means SEO.

I'm kind of planning a whole new (wider for a start) look with v9 but that may be a bad idea until it's settled in. I just fear paying out a lot of money for a nice looking v8 site when v9 looks like (cough cough) it will have some things I would be interested in and a lot of that work may not translate easily.

So, my vague idea is to get the SEO sorted on our current effort and then once v9 has settled in, go for the real thing. Might even ask you for a quote if you are not too rude to me (some hope).

[Stereo Steve]

Marke, I doubt if you are missing anything and I have no idea what an MX record is. Is it like an old 78 or something?

Seriously, when I view my non www site, all the section links turn to non www as well and I don't think it's right. Although, when I do the site: command on the non www site, it gives me all the www URL's so you are maybe correct.

Either way, we are now caught up in Malcolm and Lee's attempt to make this thread into a 15 page epic so that page one gets PR2 and their links are on it. Who am I to argue?

[RuralWeb]

page one gets PR2 Have you learnt nothing over the last year PR means nothing.

[RuralWeb]

Isn't this done automatically if the MX records point at the same IP or am I missing something?No you are missing nothing at all - you are correct

[Stereo Steve]

Have you learnt nothing over the last year PR means nothing.

Except that the LINK: operator tends to return links which have some TBPR. That means something to me and once I work out what it is, I'll be unstoppable.

[RuralWeb]

I'll be unstoppable.Top marks for effort is all I can say;)

[leehack]

I do accept this is a failing but it's not top priority. The site converts at around 8% of uniques at the mo so it's working OK when we get them through the door. What it needs is more traffic and that means SEO.
I can only say how i feel on things like this, but for me it looks like a kitchen table business, which is a shame cos i know you work your proverbials off and it certainly is not that. I would leave straight away as websites are not just about SEO IMO. You wouldn't have a retail shop with a cracked window, door that rubbed on the floor and a bad all round stench because you was moving soon, so it didn't matter too much would you? Everyone who thinks and acts like me with websites will never return to your site, which is criminal as the hard work on your SEO has got them there. SEO gets them there, design is one of the parts that keeps them there.

I'm kind of planning a whole new (wider for a start) look with v9 but that may be a bad idea until it's settled in. I just fear paying out a lot of money for a nice looking v8 site when v9 looks like (cough cough) it will have some things I would be interested in and a lot of that work may not translate easily.
V8 will upgrade to V9 easily IMO, this won't be like a 7 to 8 change, nothing like.

So, my vague idea is to get the SEO sorted on our current effort and then once v9 has settled in, go for the real thing. Might even ask you for a quote if you are not too rude to me (some hope).
V8 took 12 months to really settle, V9 will probably be around 6 months IMO, that's best part of a year Steve to wait, not like you to be so patient. LOL, you couldn't work with me Steve, we have too much history.

[RuralWeb]

I agree with lee - many people think that SEO is the be all and end all but at the end of the day conversion rates are jsut as important. Its no good having thousands of visitors if they never buy anything - thats what SEO does ie bring visitors.

As for V9 Actinic has already said that V9 will build on V8 so I dont expect any big nightmares such as we had with V8 (Actinic cannot afford it either) so V8 designs should upgrade well. I recon it will be out in May/June to allow it to settle in for next christmas.

You have missed out on the whole of V8s life really and if you had upgraded you would have seen a big SEO improvement and great marketing features which would have seen you conversion rates increase. Possibly all the work you have done on V7 has been wasted as you are simply catching up on V8.

Paying for SEO on your V7 site is IMO also a waste as when you upgrade V8/9 is such a big change that you will need to do it again.

Heres my tip - when a potential client calls me for SEO on an actinic website my first question is what version are you using. If they say V7 then the immediate answer is upgrade to V8 - now if your SEO expert is taking the time to look at your V7 site then I would suggest that they know very little about Actinic - just a thought.

Which is cheaper upgrade and do a bit of design or pay for SEO;)

[Stereo Steve]

We're on v8 now Malcolm, I built a new site on the very first full release. As ever, I take your points on design on board and will consider them. I don't want to sound like I'm disagreeing with your analysis as I think it looks like a home based business as well (which it is certainly not). But, I have also read stuff on the web from webmasters quoting my site and saying 'I want my site to look like this' so although I may not agree with them, it's a point of view to take on board.

I think the key here is planning. I don't want to start paying for design work until we have formulated where we want to go and that is going to be a big departure from where we are now. So, the first priority is to build a brief that we can give to a designer.

I guess the key point here is that in our current state, we could not cope with a huge influx of orders as we are very very busy with all our channels at the mo. My aim is to transfer the business over to the website as the main channel over time. There is simply no point me spending 20 grand on a top class site at the moment until our expansion and organization plans are in place this year. This is the main reason I am holding off on the new site.

When you are near the limit with the sales you have, the thing to spend money on is infrastructure, not getting more sales.

[RuralWeb]

the thing to spend money on is infrastructureI totally agree with you on that one. There are many businesss that have failed because they failed to get thier back office sorted before they acepted more sales.

Missed the V8 bit - DOOOOH too much spinning

[Runner]

As for the rewrite, I used this in .htaccess:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^website.co.uk
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.website.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L]

Obviously replacing 'website' with the URL. You need an apache server for this one I think and you may need to turn something on at their end but it just worked for me. You type in the url http://website.com and it takes you straight to http:/www.website.com and also works for all url's on the site which is pretty handy. So you type http://website.com/acatalog/puple-y-fronts.html and it redirects automatically to http://www.website.com/acatalog/puple-y-fronts.html

Thats got to be a good thing hasn't it? All those non www pages have page rank after all.

I tried this today but it is not working. I am with 4surehosting which I thought was Apache as I have been using .htaccess to redirect 404's to a custom 404 page. The ErrorDocument line still works. This is the current .htaccess:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^competitiveheatingsupplies.co.uk
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.competitiveheatingsupplies.co.uk/
ErrorDocument 404 /acatalog/404page.html

Any ideas?

[Duncan Rounding]

I'm a bit confused, the threads meandered a bit.

You want to redirect...
From where?
To Where?

[Runner]

From http://competitiveheatingsupplies.co.uk

to http://www.competitiveheatingsupplies.co.uk

[Duncan Rounding]

This often just happens by default with your host. In my case for example with 1and1 this happens.

Try this:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^(www\.)?competitiveheatingsupplies.co.uk
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.competitiveheatingsupplies.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L]
ErrorDocument 404 /acatalog/404page.html

[Runner]

Thanks Doug but that didn't work either.

[Duncan Rounding]

I doubted it would, but worth a try.

I think you should contact your host about it.

[TraceyHand]

Keith, contact 4sure themselves and see what they recommend.
They may have something in place preventing this from working.

[Runner]

Thanks. I have sent them a mail.

[Stereo Steve]

You need the mod rewrite module on your apache server or something.

[Darren B]

4sure seem to have something different working, i dont know what but htaccess does not seem to work, support normally fix it for you.

D

[Runner]

I just had a reply from support at 4sure. They said the code I used earlier today was "..killing my site".

I tried the following code from the webconfs (http://www.webconfs.com/how-to-redirect-a-webpage.php) site. Here is the code:

Options +FollowSymlinks
RewriteEngine on
rewritecond %{http_host} ^domain.com [nc]
rewriterule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [r=301,nc]

I've tested the redirect from the webconfs redirect tester (http://www.webconfs.com/redirect-check.php) and by typing just http://mysite.co.uk (without the www) in my browser and it appears to be working.

I've asked 4sure to check it from their end. I will let you know if a problem.