I have a gallery type website, e.g. a site that lists blog posts or pictures in a paginated manner.

However, I have 2 pages that have identical content:

  1. example.com/index.html
  2. example.com/page/1

Page 2, 3 and so on have different content naturally.

However, for SEO purposes, what is the best way of telling Google that page 1 is identical to index.html?

Should I 302 redirect index.html to /page/1 so index.html is non-existent, so to say or should I put a canonical tag in /page/1 (but not on /page/2) that points to index.html?


3 Answers 3


No don't use a 302, because it means temporary redirection. Set a canonical link in page 1 to index.html. That is the right way.

REM: both pages exist, but Google (and other search engines) will only pick one to display in search results.

  • Canonical meta tag is the way to go.
    – Jasper
    Commented Aug 18, 2014 at 18:36

To begin with, you should link to your pages using a consistent URL. If example.com/index.html and example.com/page/1 contain same content then you should remove one of these links from your website by editing HTML files or PHP code.

Next, if google or other search engines have picked up both URLs you can either:

  • Send a 301 Moved Permanently header and redirect from non-canonical to canonical URL
  • Send a 404 Not Found header when the non-canonical URL is requested. Do this only if you do not care about existing links.
  • 2
    No don't send a 404 when the non-canonical URL is requested, you would loose link juice. It is bad from an SEO perspective, especially if the non-canonical has accumulated backlinks. Commented Aug 18, 2014 at 15:54

If you have a straightforward pagination structure, such that page/1 always has the same context as index, then I agree that you should designate one of these duplicate URLs as the canonical one, and either use rel=canonical links to inform Google about this, or simply redirect the non-canonical URL(s) to the canonical one. In fact, the best option would be to adjust you pagination code so that there will be no links to the non-canonical URLs in the first place.

However, note that such a URL structure is quite suboptimal if new pages may be added to the list (anywhere but at the end), since inserting a new page will cause the numbers of all higher-numbered pages to shift. This will:

  • break any links to those pages,
  • require Google to re-crawl the whole list of pages, and
  • until that happens, potentially cause some pages to be missing or duplicated in Google's index.

Instead, a more user and search engine friendly URL structure involves giving all the pages permanent URLs involving e.g. timestamps or post IDs. (For an example, see the URL of this page.) Thus, for your example list of blog posts, you might have a set of URLs like this:

  • /index.html (always shows content of newest post)
  • /post/20140818 (currently identical to index.html)
  • /post/20140817
  • /post/20140816
  • /post/20140815
  • etc.

with navigation links pointing to the previous and next permanent URL, an a "latest" link pointing to the index URL.

Such a URL structure has a number of advantages:

  • Users can easily link to any of the posts, or to the index page showing the latest post, without the links breaking when new posts are added.
  • Both the index page and the individual post pages can also be easily bookmarked.
  • Search engines will only need to crawl each page once (expect for the index page, which will be detected as frequently changing, and thus recrawled often).

(For optimal crawling, you should also maintain an up-to-date XML sitemap of all the pages, including the index, and ping search engines whenever a new page is added. As a fallback, you should also ensure that the index page always has a link to the latest permanent URL somewhere on it, so that search engines recrawling the index page will discover any new permanent URLs.)

As for using redirects or rel=canonical links with such a permalink-based pagination structure, the established practice appears to be not to do it. While the index page and the latest permalink URL will indeed (temporarily) have duplicated content, they aren't really equivalent from an SEO viewpoint, and you do want both to be indexed separately. Fortunately, as this is a commonly used pagination scheme (and, I believe, actually recommended by Google), major search engines will generally handle it well, treating it as "acceptable" duplication and generally showing appropriate results (the index page for general searches, permalinks for page-specific keywords) without any explicit hinting.

  • Thank you for the insightful answer. However, I disagree with your latest statement. I think a rel=canonical should be used and can't hurt.
    – Dzhuneyt
    Commented Aug 19, 2014 at 8:51
  • @WordPressDeveloper: Which way would you point it? If you make the permalink URLs canonical, users will never see the index URL in SERPs. If you make the index URL canonical, you risk having old content dropped from Google when the index page changes, because Google still thinks the old pages are just copies of the canonical index page. Anyway, none of the sites I checked with this kind of a pagination scheme (mostly blogs and webcomics) used rel=canonical, and they all seem to do just fine on Google. Commented Aug 19, 2014 at 13:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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