6 replies to this topic

[brassmonkey]

Hi,

I have just discovered an old unloved website whereby urls are internally linked without the .html extension, but (to my horror) all of the external backlinks to these inner pages are WITH the .html.

Both versions serve up the same page, so is duplicate content.

Ideally, I would like to stick with the site's normal url protocol of using no .html.

If I 301 all .html versions to non .html, then most of the website's 15k links will also be 301'ing to the non .html versions.

Would I be better to ditch the entire site structure and stick get it totally reindexed with the .html versions (so the links are correct), or can I trust that 301 will pass the link juice through the 301's? Baring mind these pages have been live for years and rank well!

Thanks

[Jill]

Baring mind these pages have been live for years and rank well!

Then why not leave well enough alone? Sounds like Google has already worked it out for you.

[chrishirst]

I agree with Jill, leave it well alone, if it hasn't been a "problem" before you found out, why would it become a problem now that you do??

[brassmonkey]

Well I would say because there are 2 versions of the same page for a few of the main pages (the ones that have been externally linked).
If I do a site: command the few incorrectly .html extensioned pages show really low down (2 or 3rd page). Despite this they do still rank well, presumably as they have a ton of inbounds.
This to me indicates they aren't being given their due credit, perhaps as the juice is divided across 2 pages? They "could" rank even higher.
The problem for me though is how much is lost through 301'ing the majority of the website's backlinks.

[Jill]

You don't really lose anything from 301's. You should be fine.

[brassmonkey]

OK thanks Jill, I think I will 301 to the correct non html protocol. Fingers crossed!

[chrishirst]

OK thanks Jill, I think I will 301 to the correct non html protocol. Fingers crossed!

In this case, using the word protocol despite it being absolutely grammatically correct and appropriate for the statement. It may cause some confusion for readers without a good working knowledge of the English language thus leading to some mis-understanding how "protocol" is being used. Here being employed in the diplomatic sense of:
"customs or regulations when dealing with behaviour or formality"

For this topic,and for the purpose of avoiding any ambiguity or confusion with "communication protocol" the ".html" version of the URI would/should be referred to as the "canonical version"

And yes this is me in my pedantic and "nit-picking" "primary school teacher" persona.

Edited by chrishirst, 27 May 2012 - 05:21 AM.