SEO gone mad...

[steve]

On 10/14/2015 09:03 AM, nanaya wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015, at 04:58 AM, steve wrote:
>>>> As can be seen from the google article, it's apparently a bad thing(tm)
>>>> to duplicate content for example.com/ and example.com. Apparently some
>>>> .htaccess tweak can do a 301 redirect from one to the other, but
>>>> absolutely nothing that has been suggested ( or others that allegedly
>>>> work - like redirecting ^/(.*)/ ) does actually work with nginx, which
>>>> is exactly what I expected to happen.
>>>>
>>> I don't know how you can miss this which has been quoted before:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> Rest assured that for your root URL specifically, http://example.com is
>>> equivalent to http://example.com/ and can’t be redirected even if you’re
>>> Chuck Norris.
>>> ```
>>>
>>> http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-slash-or-not-to-slash.html
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>> When your customer states categorically that it is a problem, then it is
>> my job to investigate.
>>
> You said
>
>>>> As can be seen from the google article, it's apparently a bad thing(tm)
>>>> to duplicate content for example.com/ and example.com. Apparently some
> but the google article clearly says otherwise (unless you're referring
> to a different google article).
>
I suggest you re-read the article... whilst it does include the Chuck 
Norris quote, it also states 'While it’s not totally optimal behavior, 
it’s perfectly legitimate and a-okay. :)'.

Obviously my clients consultants were aiming at the 'optimal' solution, 
which is what the canonical header is designed for.


( this is also *not* a google sanctioned document - it's on blogspot )

-- 
Steve Holdoway BSc(Hons) MIITP
http://www.greengecko.co.nz
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/steveholdoway
Skype: sholdowa