Should I redirect “ugly” URL to friendly URL?
I use mod_rewrite to rewrite https://example.com/?page=some-page&tab=2
to https://example.com/articles/some-page/2
. But people can still access both URLs.
I want to know: should I redirect the "ugly" URL to the friendly URL?
Does that improve my SEO? And why?
seo redirects url clean-urls
add a comment |
I use mod_rewrite to rewrite https://example.com/?page=some-page&tab=2
to https://example.com/articles/some-page/2
. But people can still access both URLs.
I want to know: should I redirect the "ugly" URL to the friendly URL?
Does that improve my SEO? And why?
seo redirects url clean-urls
Google describes it in length: support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07
add a comment |
I use mod_rewrite to rewrite https://example.com/?page=some-page&tab=2
to https://example.com/articles/some-page/2
. But people can still access both URLs.
I want to know: should I redirect the "ugly" URL to the friendly URL?
Does that improve my SEO? And why?
seo redirects url clean-urls
I use mod_rewrite to rewrite https://example.com/?page=some-page&tab=2
to https://example.com/articles/some-page/2
. But people can still access both URLs.
I want to know: should I redirect the "ugly" URL to the friendly URL?
Does that improve my SEO? And why?
seo redirects url clean-urls
seo redirects url clean-urls
edited Dec 28 '18 at 17:20
unor
18.2k32876
18.2k32876
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:31
515948453225515948453225
405
405
Google describes it in length: support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07
add a comment |
Google describes it in length: support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07
Google describes it in length: support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07
Google describes it in length: support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
You only need to redirect the "ugly" URL if you had changed the URL structure and the "ugly" URLs had already been indexed by search engines and/or linked to by third parties. In this case, it is essential to redirect the old "ugly" URLs in order to preserve SEO and possibly prevent duplicate content issues.
However, if you implemented the "pretty" URLs from the very beginning - and these are the only URLs being referenced, then it's unlikely that redirecting the "ugly" URLs would make any difference in terms of SEO. You should already have the appropriate rel="canonical"
tags in-place, which further negates the requirement to implement redirects from the "ugly" URLs.
search google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=htaccess :)
– tatactic
Dec 28 '18 at 18:08
@tatactic What is that in reference to?
– MrWhite
Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
It creates duplicate content issue and Search Engines dislike duplicate content.
Ugly url MUST be validly redirect to seo friendly URLs to avoid duplicate content/pages issue.
3
I wouldn't agree. Google knows how to handle a 301 correctly. Presuming, of course, that you serve the 301 to everyone including Googlebot... If you serve content to Googlebot but a redirect to the public, that's cloaking And top of the no-no list.
– Harper
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
3
@Harper "I wouldn't agree." - I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing" with? That would seem to be what the answer is already saying?
– MrWhite
Dec 27 '18 at 22:44
This is a myth and a legend. Google already dismissed that allegation many times (see support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359). It has no problems with it whatsoever and if you specify the canonical address in the page, it'll even be happy.
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:04
Also, Google explicitely asks you not to do a 301 redirect unless you want to deprecate that page. See support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:13
add a comment |
Much ado is made of optimizing URLs for SEO. However, the real importance of URL shaping is preserving bookmark and external link traffic. Keyword-stuffing URLs is an old, cheap trick, and search engines give it very little weight because it's so easy to abuse.
And it makes stupid URLs that are hard to type. Even more laughably, breaking external links breaks PageRank/link relevance. These days every search engine also makes a browser, so with a little snooping, they can also use user bookmarks to rank. So preserve that organic traffic, it is more than organic. Some people say "never 404 any page"; I heartily agree and this is why.
There are no 404s in my log, except for human-fatfingered URLs, and that's usually me lol.
Of course, reality is that you do change web platforms from time to time, and you get locked out of using your traditional URL. That's where the HTTP response "301 Permanent Redirect" comes in, because Google and Bing certainly understand a 301, and PageRank and other factors will follow the 301. Upshot: 301 is essential.
Some lousy websites redirect all 404s to the homepage. Seriously, how often do you then stay on that website? You don't, you leave. So does Google, they know that you have destroyed the specificity that their searcher wants, so the search engine discards the page-level rank factors. The site had them, the site wasted them, and they get to start over.
Anyway, what you propose is exactly the right thing: redirect content to its specific mate page that has the same content, or at least content that is equally specific.
Your hope is that the "pretty URL" will provide better SEO. I don't put a lot of stock in that, as said. However, I certainly do put stock in the search engine doing a better job indexing and ranking "static" pages like site.com/dir/subdir/page.html
than dynamic pages like site.com/engine.cgi?param=value¶m=value
. The latter is often redundant to static pages elsewhere, search results of an internal search engine, or a black hole (infinite, recursive links). Because of the diminished value, and risk of black hole, crawlers are skittish about indexing those deeply.
add a comment |
Although there is an accepted answer already, I still felt the need to make a complete description, based on Google's own recommendations rather than various legends floating around the net.
Basically, the important part is that duplicate content is not frowned upon, no matter what the legends say. Google expects it to happen all the time because this is how practically all CMS systems work. When there are two URLs (Google's documentation mentions exactly your case), one is almost always supposed to be better, the SEO and human friendly one. Make sure that all your pages, no matter what URL variant they respond to, all feature the canonical URL you want Google to use. If you don't do that, Google will guess; and while it probably gets it right most of the time, it's always better if you do it yourself. If you do so, no matter how Google arrives at that page, it'll note the canonical address and will use it to refer to the page in all search results.
301 redirection is only used for pages to be retired, to make both engines and users aware of the need to move to the new URL permanently. Google asks you only to use redirection in this specific case, and never redirect just because you have a duplicate URL. URL preference is determined by the canonical URL tag, not by redirecting.
Documentation:
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "45"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwebmasters.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f119870%2fshould-i-redirect-ugly-url-to-friendly-url%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You only need to redirect the "ugly" URL if you had changed the URL structure and the "ugly" URLs had already been indexed by search engines and/or linked to by third parties. In this case, it is essential to redirect the old "ugly" URLs in order to preserve SEO and possibly prevent duplicate content issues.
However, if you implemented the "pretty" URLs from the very beginning - and these are the only URLs being referenced, then it's unlikely that redirecting the "ugly" URLs would make any difference in terms of SEO. You should already have the appropriate rel="canonical"
tags in-place, which further negates the requirement to implement redirects from the "ugly" URLs.
search google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=htaccess :)
– tatactic
Dec 28 '18 at 18:08
@tatactic What is that in reference to?
– MrWhite
Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
You only need to redirect the "ugly" URL if you had changed the URL structure and the "ugly" URLs had already been indexed by search engines and/or linked to by third parties. In this case, it is essential to redirect the old "ugly" URLs in order to preserve SEO and possibly prevent duplicate content issues.
However, if you implemented the "pretty" URLs from the very beginning - and these are the only URLs being referenced, then it's unlikely that redirecting the "ugly" URLs would make any difference in terms of SEO. You should already have the appropriate rel="canonical"
tags in-place, which further negates the requirement to implement redirects from the "ugly" URLs.
search google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=htaccess :)
– tatactic
Dec 28 '18 at 18:08
@tatactic What is that in reference to?
– MrWhite
Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
You only need to redirect the "ugly" URL if you had changed the URL structure and the "ugly" URLs had already been indexed by search engines and/or linked to by third parties. In this case, it is essential to redirect the old "ugly" URLs in order to preserve SEO and possibly prevent duplicate content issues.
However, if you implemented the "pretty" URLs from the very beginning - and these are the only URLs being referenced, then it's unlikely that redirecting the "ugly" URLs would make any difference in terms of SEO. You should already have the appropriate rel="canonical"
tags in-place, which further negates the requirement to implement redirects from the "ugly" URLs.
You only need to redirect the "ugly" URL if you had changed the URL structure and the "ugly" URLs had already been indexed by search engines and/or linked to by third parties. In this case, it is essential to redirect the old "ugly" URLs in order to preserve SEO and possibly prevent duplicate content issues.
However, if you implemented the "pretty" URLs from the very beginning - and these are the only URLs being referenced, then it's unlikely that redirecting the "ugly" URLs would make any difference in terms of SEO. You should already have the appropriate rel="canonical"
tags in-place, which further negates the requirement to implement redirects from the "ugly" URLs.
edited Dec 27 '18 at 23:40
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:24
MrWhiteMrWhite
30.8k33365
30.8k33365
search google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=htaccess :)
– tatactic
Dec 28 '18 at 18:08
@tatactic What is that in reference to?
– MrWhite
Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
search google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=htaccess :)
– tatactic
Dec 28 '18 at 18:08
@tatactic What is that in reference to?
– MrWhite
Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
search google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=htaccess :)
– tatactic
Dec 28 '18 at 18:08
search google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=htaccess :)
– tatactic
Dec 28 '18 at 18:08
@tatactic What is that in reference to?
– MrWhite
Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
@tatactic What is that in reference to?
– MrWhite
Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
It creates duplicate content issue and Search Engines dislike duplicate content.
Ugly url MUST be validly redirect to seo friendly URLs to avoid duplicate content/pages issue.
3
I wouldn't agree. Google knows how to handle a 301 correctly. Presuming, of course, that you serve the 301 to everyone including Googlebot... If you serve content to Googlebot but a redirect to the public, that's cloaking And top of the no-no list.
– Harper
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
3
@Harper "I wouldn't agree." - I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing" with? That would seem to be what the answer is already saying?
– MrWhite
Dec 27 '18 at 22:44
This is a myth and a legend. Google already dismissed that allegation many times (see support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359). It has no problems with it whatsoever and if you specify the canonical address in the page, it'll even be happy.
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:04
Also, Google explicitely asks you not to do a 301 redirect unless you want to deprecate that page. See support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:13
add a comment |
It creates duplicate content issue and Search Engines dislike duplicate content.
Ugly url MUST be validly redirect to seo friendly URLs to avoid duplicate content/pages issue.
3
I wouldn't agree. Google knows how to handle a 301 correctly. Presuming, of course, that you serve the 301 to everyone including Googlebot... If you serve content to Googlebot but a redirect to the public, that's cloaking And top of the no-no list.
– Harper
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
3
@Harper "I wouldn't agree." - I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing" with? That would seem to be what the answer is already saying?
– MrWhite
Dec 27 '18 at 22:44
This is a myth and a legend. Google already dismissed that allegation many times (see support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359). It has no problems with it whatsoever and if you specify the canonical address in the page, it'll even be happy.
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:04
Also, Google explicitely asks you not to do a 301 redirect unless you want to deprecate that page. See support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:13
add a comment |
It creates duplicate content issue and Search Engines dislike duplicate content.
Ugly url MUST be validly redirect to seo friendly URLs to avoid duplicate content/pages issue.
It creates duplicate content issue and Search Engines dislike duplicate content.
Ugly url MUST be validly redirect to seo friendly URLs to avoid duplicate content/pages issue.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
NandlaNandla
3813
3813
3
I wouldn't agree. Google knows how to handle a 301 correctly. Presuming, of course, that you serve the 301 to everyone including Googlebot... If you serve content to Googlebot but a redirect to the public, that's cloaking And top of the no-no list.
– Harper
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
3
@Harper "I wouldn't agree." - I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing" with? That would seem to be what the answer is already saying?
– MrWhite
Dec 27 '18 at 22:44
This is a myth and a legend. Google already dismissed that allegation many times (see support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359). It has no problems with it whatsoever and if you specify the canonical address in the page, it'll even be happy.
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:04
Also, Google explicitely asks you not to do a 301 redirect unless you want to deprecate that page. See support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:13
add a comment |
3
I wouldn't agree. Google knows how to handle a 301 correctly. Presuming, of course, that you serve the 301 to everyone including Googlebot... If you serve content to Googlebot but a redirect to the public, that's cloaking And top of the no-no list.
– Harper
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
3
@Harper "I wouldn't agree." - I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing" with? That would seem to be what the answer is already saying?
– MrWhite
Dec 27 '18 at 22:44
This is a myth and a legend. Google already dismissed that allegation many times (see support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359). It has no problems with it whatsoever and if you specify the canonical address in the page, it'll even be happy.
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:04
Also, Google explicitely asks you not to do a 301 redirect unless you want to deprecate that page. See support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:13
3
3
I wouldn't agree. Google knows how to handle a 301 correctly. Presuming, of course, that you serve the 301 to everyone including Googlebot... If you serve content to Googlebot but a redirect to the public, that's cloaking And top of the no-no list.
– Harper
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
I wouldn't agree. Google knows how to handle a 301 correctly. Presuming, of course, that you serve the 301 to everyone including Googlebot... If you serve content to Googlebot but a redirect to the public, that's cloaking And top of the no-no list.
– Harper
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
3
3
@Harper "I wouldn't agree." - I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing" with? That would seem to be what the answer is already saying?
– MrWhite
Dec 27 '18 at 22:44
@Harper "I wouldn't agree." - I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing" with? That would seem to be what the answer is already saying?
– MrWhite
Dec 27 '18 at 22:44
This is a myth and a legend. Google already dismissed that allegation many times (see support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359). It has no problems with it whatsoever and if you specify the canonical address in the page, it'll even be happy.
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:04
This is a myth and a legend. Google already dismissed that allegation many times (see support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359). It has no problems with it whatsoever and if you specify the canonical address in the page, it'll even be happy.
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:04
Also, Google explicitely asks you not to do a 301 redirect unless you want to deprecate that page. See support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:13
Also, Google explicitely asks you not to do a 301 redirect unless you want to deprecate that page. See support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:13
add a comment |
Much ado is made of optimizing URLs for SEO. However, the real importance of URL shaping is preserving bookmark and external link traffic. Keyword-stuffing URLs is an old, cheap trick, and search engines give it very little weight because it's so easy to abuse.
And it makes stupid URLs that are hard to type. Even more laughably, breaking external links breaks PageRank/link relevance. These days every search engine also makes a browser, so with a little snooping, they can also use user bookmarks to rank. So preserve that organic traffic, it is more than organic. Some people say "never 404 any page"; I heartily agree and this is why.
There are no 404s in my log, except for human-fatfingered URLs, and that's usually me lol.
Of course, reality is that you do change web platforms from time to time, and you get locked out of using your traditional URL. That's where the HTTP response "301 Permanent Redirect" comes in, because Google and Bing certainly understand a 301, and PageRank and other factors will follow the 301. Upshot: 301 is essential.
Some lousy websites redirect all 404s to the homepage. Seriously, how often do you then stay on that website? You don't, you leave. So does Google, they know that you have destroyed the specificity that their searcher wants, so the search engine discards the page-level rank factors. The site had them, the site wasted them, and they get to start over.
Anyway, what you propose is exactly the right thing: redirect content to its specific mate page that has the same content, or at least content that is equally specific.
Your hope is that the "pretty URL" will provide better SEO. I don't put a lot of stock in that, as said. However, I certainly do put stock in the search engine doing a better job indexing and ranking "static" pages like site.com/dir/subdir/page.html
than dynamic pages like site.com/engine.cgi?param=value¶m=value
. The latter is often redundant to static pages elsewhere, search results of an internal search engine, or a black hole (infinite, recursive links). Because of the diminished value, and risk of black hole, crawlers are skittish about indexing those deeply.
add a comment |
Much ado is made of optimizing URLs for SEO. However, the real importance of URL shaping is preserving bookmark and external link traffic. Keyword-stuffing URLs is an old, cheap trick, and search engines give it very little weight because it's so easy to abuse.
And it makes stupid URLs that are hard to type. Even more laughably, breaking external links breaks PageRank/link relevance. These days every search engine also makes a browser, so with a little snooping, they can also use user bookmarks to rank. So preserve that organic traffic, it is more than organic. Some people say "never 404 any page"; I heartily agree and this is why.
There are no 404s in my log, except for human-fatfingered URLs, and that's usually me lol.
Of course, reality is that you do change web platforms from time to time, and you get locked out of using your traditional URL. That's where the HTTP response "301 Permanent Redirect" comes in, because Google and Bing certainly understand a 301, and PageRank and other factors will follow the 301. Upshot: 301 is essential.
Some lousy websites redirect all 404s to the homepage. Seriously, how often do you then stay on that website? You don't, you leave. So does Google, they know that you have destroyed the specificity that their searcher wants, so the search engine discards the page-level rank factors. The site had them, the site wasted them, and they get to start over.
Anyway, what you propose is exactly the right thing: redirect content to its specific mate page that has the same content, or at least content that is equally specific.
Your hope is that the "pretty URL" will provide better SEO. I don't put a lot of stock in that, as said. However, I certainly do put stock in the search engine doing a better job indexing and ranking "static" pages like site.com/dir/subdir/page.html
than dynamic pages like site.com/engine.cgi?param=value¶m=value
. The latter is often redundant to static pages elsewhere, search results of an internal search engine, or a black hole (infinite, recursive links). Because of the diminished value, and risk of black hole, crawlers are skittish about indexing those deeply.
add a comment |
Much ado is made of optimizing URLs for SEO. However, the real importance of URL shaping is preserving bookmark and external link traffic. Keyword-stuffing URLs is an old, cheap trick, and search engines give it very little weight because it's so easy to abuse.
And it makes stupid URLs that are hard to type. Even more laughably, breaking external links breaks PageRank/link relevance. These days every search engine also makes a browser, so with a little snooping, they can also use user bookmarks to rank. So preserve that organic traffic, it is more than organic. Some people say "never 404 any page"; I heartily agree and this is why.
There are no 404s in my log, except for human-fatfingered URLs, and that's usually me lol.
Of course, reality is that you do change web platforms from time to time, and you get locked out of using your traditional URL. That's where the HTTP response "301 Permanent Redirect" comes in, because Google and Bing certainly understand a 301, and PageRank and other factors will follow the 301. Upshot: 301 is essential.
Some lousy websites redirect all 404s to the homepage. Seriously, how often do you then stay on that website? You don't, you leave. So does Google, they know that you have destroyed the specificity that their searcher wants, so the search engine discards the page-level rank factors. The site had them, the site wasted them, and they get to start over.
Anyway, what you propose is exactly the right thing: redirect content to its specific mate page that has the same content, or at least content that is equally specific.
Your hope is that the "pretty URL" will provide better SEO. I don't put a lot of stock in that, as said. However, I certainly do put stock in the search engine doing a better job indexing and ranking "static" pages like site.com/dir/subdir/page.html
than dynamic pages like site.com/engine.cgi?param=value¶m=value
. The latter is often redundant to static pages elsewhere, search results of an internal search engine, or a black hole (infinite, recursive links). Because of the diminished value, and risk of black hole, crawlers are skittish about indexing those deeply.
Much ado is made of optimizing URLs for SEO. However, the real importance of URL shaping is preserving bookmark and external link traffic. Keyword-stuffing URLs is an old, cheap trick, and search engines give it very little weight because it's so easy to abuse.
And it makes stupid URLs that are hard to type. Even more laughably, breaking external links breaks PageRank/link relevance. These days every search engine also makes a browser, so with a little snooping, they can also use user bookmarks to rank. So preserve that organic traffic, it is more than organic. Some people say "never 404 any page"; I heartily agree and this is why.
There are no 404s in my log, except for human-fatfingered URLs, and that's usually me lol.
Of course, reality is that you do change web platforms from time to time, and you get locked out of using your traditional URL. That's where the HTTP response "301 Permanent Redirect" comes in, because Google and Bing certainly understand a 301, and PageRank and other factors will follow the 301. Upshot: 301 is essential.
Some lousy websites redirect all 404s to the homepage. Seriously, how often do you then stay on that website? You don't, you leave. So does Google, they know that you have destroyed the specificity that their searcher wants, so the search engine discards the page-level rank factors. The site had them, the site wasted them, and they get to start over.
Anyway, what you propose is exactly the right thing: redirect content to its specific mate page that has the same content, or at least content that is equally specific.
Your hope is that the "pretty URL" will provide better SEO. I don't put a lot of stock in that, as said. However, I certainly do put stock in the search engine doing a better job indexing and ranking "static" pages like site.com/dir/subdir/page.html
than dynamic pages like site.com/engine.cgi?param=value¶m=value
. The latter is often redundant to static pages elsewhere, search results of an internal search engine, or a black hole (infinite, recursive links). Because of the diminished value, and risk of black hole, crawlers are skittish about indexing those deeply.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 21:17
HarperHarper
37615
37615
add a comment |
add a comment |
Although there is an accepted answer already, I still felt the need to make a complete description, based on Google's own recommendations rather than various legends floating around the net.
Basically, the important part is that duplicate content is not frowned upon, no matter what the legends say. Google expects it to happen all the time because this is how practically all CMS systems work. When there are two URLs (Google's documentation mentions exactly your case), one is almost always supposed to be better, the SEO and human friendly one. Make sure that all your pages, no matter what URL variant they respond to, all feature the canonical URL you want Google to use. If you don't do that, Google will guess; and while it probably gets it right most of the time, it's always better if you do it yourself. If you do so, no matter how Google arrives at that page, it'll note the canonical address and will use it to refer to the page in all search results.
301 redirection is only used for pages to be retired, to make both engines and users aware of the need to move to the new URL permanently. Google asks you only to use redirection in this specific case, and never redirect just because you have a duplicate URL. URL preference is determined by the canonical URL tag, not by redirecting.
Documentation:
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359
add a comment |
Although there is an accepted answer already, I still felt the need to make a complete description, based on Google's own recommendations rather than various legends floating around the net.
Basically, the important part is that duplicate content is not frowned upon, no matter what the legends say. Google expects it to happen all the time because this is how practically all CMS systems work. When there are two URLs (Google's documentation mentions exactly your case), one is almost always supposed to be better, the SEO and human friendly one. Make sure that all your pages, no matter what URL variant they respond to, all feature the canonical URL you want Google to use. If you don't do that, Google will guess; and while it probably gets it right most of the time, it's always better if you do it yourself. If you do so, no matter how Google arrives at that page, it'll note the canonical address and will use it to refer to the page in all search results.
301 redirection is only used for pages to be retired, to make both engines and users aware of the need to move to the new URL permanently. Google asks you only to use redirection in this specific case, and never redirect just because you have a duplicate URL. URL preference is determined by the canonical URL tag, not by redirecting.
Documentation:
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359
add a comment |
Although there is an accepted answer already, I still felt the need to make a complete description, based on Google's own recommendations rather than various legends floating around the net.
Basically, the important part is that duplicate content is not frowned upon, no matter what the legends say. Google expects it to happen all the time because this is how practically all CMS systems work. When there are two URLs (Google's documentation mentions exactly your case), one is almost always supposed to be better, the SEO and human friendly one. Make sure that all your pages, no matter what URL variant they respond to, all feature the canonical URL you want Google to use. If you don't do that, Google will guess; and while it probably gets it right most of the time, it's always better if you do it yourself. If you do so, no matter how Google arrives at that page, it'll note the canonical address and will use it to refer to the page in all search results.
301 redirection is only used for pages to be retired, to make both engines and users aware of the need to move to the new URL permanently. Google asks you only to use redirection in this specific case, and never redirect just because you have a duplicate URL. URL preference is determined by the canonical URL tag, not by redirecting.
Documentation:
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359
Although there is an accepted answer already, I still felt the need to make a complete description, based on Google's own recommendations rather than various legends floating around the net.
Basically, the important part is that duplicate content is not frowned upon, no matter what the legends say. Google expects it to happen all the time because this is how practically all CMS systems work. When there are two URLs (Google's documentation mentions exactly your case), one is almost always supposed to be better, the SEO and human friendly one. Make sure that all your pages, no matter what URL variant they respond to, all feature the canonical URL you want Google to use. If you don't do that, Google will guess; and while it probably gets it right most of the time, it's always better if you do it yourself. If you do so, no matter how Google arrives at that page, it'll note the canonical address and will use it to refer to the page in all search results.
301 redirection is only used for pages to be retired, to make both engines and users aware of the need to move to the new URL permanently. Google asks you only to use redirection in this specific case, and never redirect just because you have a duplicate URL. URL preference is determined by the canonical URL tag, not by redirecting.
Documentation:
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359
edited Dec 28 '18 at 14:31
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:25
GáborGábor
1112
1112
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Webmasters Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwebmasters.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f119870%2fshould-i-redirect-ugly-url-to-friendly-url%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Google describes it in length: support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066
– Gábor
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07