Sign up ×
Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In your experience, have you ever had problems with duplicate content being caused by the following URLs:


Do you think that this could result in a duplicate content issue if my canonical link is constantly pointing to only this:

share|improve this question
Note: The domain used by the OP was as referenced in the first answer. Subsequent edits to would break that reference, however can be considered the same. – dan May 19 '14 at 23:34

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

No, not if their content is identical (or very nearly so), and they all have a canonical link element referencing

However, that sort of issue happening site wide can be considered a crawl efficiency issue and the canonical link element doesn't really solve that. In your example, a search bot would crawl three pages when it really only needed to crawl one. Scale that up, and add other duplication issues, and it gets to be a problem.

So for that sort of issue (we can include things like with/without the www subdomain, with/without HTTPS, etc.), it's usually better to use URL rewrites to 301 redirect back to the canonical form.

The canonical link element is the weapon of choice when there's a lot of variation in the duplications you're managing, or you don't know in advance what they will be. Think of a shopping site where tens of product category refinement parameters can be added to a base URL in any order, for example. That doesn't mean don't add it unless you have that sort of problem, just don't rely on it to solve problems there are better solutions for.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for you help, all HTTPS requests are 301nd to HTTP, all requests are also 301nd to www subdomain sitewide, I have now also managed to redirect "/" in root to, but now have to work with index.html in root and directories to one consistent version. – AlexB May 17 '14 at 9:29
This may help you… – GDav May 17 '14 at 9:32
To add more, I have also got redirect on every directory with lower/upper-case, so if my directory is /MyDirectory/ and request is /mydirectory/ the index.php will 301 it to the right case and corrects URL in the address bar, so hopefully I am on the right track. – AlexB May 17 '14 at 9:33
THe rule in .htaccess is working fine with static version of the url, but it did not work for me, since all of the content is written on index.php in my case and it will not work along with some other rules in my .htaccess. – AlexB May 17 '14 at 9:36
Normalising case is another good one to do, yes. If you've no option, you could normalise to /index.php rather than /: it doesn't really matter which, as long as only one variant resolves a page. – GDav May 17 '14 at 9:49

From a technical standpoint, only two of those are actually different URLs. The following are always the same:


The reason is that it is impossible for your site to serve different content at those two URLs because of the way that the HTTP protocol is defined. When a request to your server is made, the first line looks like:

GET / HTTP/1.1

Where the slash is the the part after your domain name. The HTTP spec does not allow this to be empty, so a browser must send a slash when fetching

This is in contrast with


which could have different content because they look different when your server receives them.

Because clients always send a slash, I prefer as the canonical URL because it best matches what actually happens under the hood.

Your canonical element should prevent search engines from indexing duplicate content, or penalizing for it.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.