Submit Your Article Forum Rules

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: 301 Redirect

  1. #51
    WebProWorld MVP deepsand's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    16,443
    Quote Originally Posted by mccreath View Post
    For that domain I +1ed the www version. The other version did not get the vote! So, at least without a canonical tag Google+ considers them as different places. Can we get the canonical tag added and see if the score merges?
    A weekend later than expected; but, canonical tag added to map to non-WWW form, and Google upload requested.

    BTW, did anyone earlier notice the limit of 500 upload requests on WMT?

  2. #52
    Moderator Tiggerito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by deepsand View Post
    A weekend later than expected; but, canonical tag added to map to non-WWW form, and Google upload requested.

    BTW, did anyone earlier notice the limit of 500 upload requests on WMT?
    Cheers, I'll keep an eye on things and see if the +1 gets transferred/merged.

    I noticed the canonical URL was in Camel Case. Do you know if it's case sensitive?
    by Tony McCreath (Tiggerito)
    owner of Web Site Advantage

  3. #53
    WebProWorld MVP deepsand's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    16,443
    A question that I asked myself - which is why I used U/L-case in the canonical tag - with the answer being "probably not, but let's wait and see."

    To properly handle those OSes & web servers which do make the distinction, such as Unix and Unix-like ones, Google should make the distinction; but, there's no guarantee of that. They might just temper the display based on the web server of the site in question, thus ignoring it on sites that are, for example, hosted on IIS.

  4. #54
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4
    yes i also want to know about it?

  5. #55
    WebProWorld MVP deepsand's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    16,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Genite
    yes i also want to know about it?
    About what?

  6. #56
    Moderator Tiggerito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by deepsand View Post
    A question that I asked myself - which is why I used U/L-case in the canonical tag - with the answer being "probably not, but let's wait and see."

    To properly handle those OSes & web servers which do make the distinction, such as Unix and Unix-like ones, Google should make the distinction; but, there's no guarantee of that. They might just temper the display based on the web server of the site in question, thus ignoring it on sites that are, for example, hosted on IIS.
    I think domain names themselves are case-insensitive. It's just the path part that can be case-sensitive. All my browsers (Chrome, IE, FF) automatically switch domain names to lower case, so does my tools that use .Net.
    by Tony McCreath (Tiggerito)
    owner of Web Site Advantage

  7. #57
    WebProWorld MVP deepsand's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    16,443
    By specification, domain names themselves are indeed case-insensitive.

    What I'm testing here is whether or not Google honors medial capitals.

  8. #58
    Administrator weegillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,785
    Quote Originally Posted by deepsand View Post
    By specification, domain names themselves are indeed case-insensitive.

    What I'm testing here is whether or not Google honors medial capitals.
    ... which brings up an even bigger duplication problem (in my imagination, anyway).

  9. #59

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •