Revolution and "SEO Strict URLs"

In MODx Evolution there is a plugin called SEO Strict URLs that "Enforces the use of unique document URLs to prevent duplicate content." I highly recommend it for any Evolution site. I had hoped that MODx Revolution would address this issue in the core, but unfortunately Revolution still serves many possible URL variations for the exact same content:

200 OK:
Quote from: "Potential

• /alias.html - (Canonical)
• /?id=1
• /?id=1.
• /?id=1.0
• /?id=1.0000
• /?id=1.000000000
• /1
• /1.
• /1.0
• /1.0000
• /1.000000000

Unfortunately, the current handling is not very SEO "Strict" -- Ideally all scenarios above would 301 Redirect to the Canonical URL: "/1" OR "/alias-name-here.ext" with FURLs enabled.

At first I thought the only exception to this internal handling was for the site home page (site_start), since "/index.html" redirects to "/" (Great!) ...However, "/1" does not?

Is this level of functionality something that make sense to consider core-implementation, or does an optional 3PC/Plugin solution (similar to Evo) make more sense?

I have filed a similar bug report:
http://bugs.modx.com/browse/MODX-2306

Can you add these examples to that bug report?

Couldn’t agree more on the need for this to be core functionality. One resource, one canonical URL.

DM

Quote from: rfoster at Sep 02, 2010, 12:31 AM

I have filed a similar bug report:
http://bugs.modx.com/browse/MODX-2306

Can you add these examples to that bug report?

@rfoster, I have updated http://bugs.modx.com/browse/MODX-2306 http://bugs.modx.com/issues/90 to include these examples. [ed. note: pixelchutes last edited this post 15 years ago.]

Should we add the need for FURLS for getPage, archivist, etc... to this issue?

Quote from: charliez at Sep 02, 2010, 01:35 PM

Should we add the need for FURLS for getPage, archivist, etc... to this issue?

@charliez, I would consider addressing this type of support request with the ADDON author or in the ADDONs support thread directly. Since they are maintained via GitHub, you could also file an issue there to ensure it gets addressed:

http://github.com/opengeek/getPage/issues
http://github.com/splittingred/Archivist/issues http://bugs.modx.com/projects/archivist/issues [ed. note: pixelchutes last edited this post 15 years ago.]

It’s A shame that MODx not supporting SEO Strict - I never use MODx anymore just because of this!

:-)
Morten
www.lille-web.dk

You give up on the most flexible CMS/CMF out there because of it accepting 1.0000? o.O


I’m not a SEO expert, by far. But Google only indexes links it finds elsewhere. So unless you’re deliberately linking to pages using the method outlined in this post, I honestly don’t see how this behaviour can damage your ranking so badly it will make you decide to stop using a cms..


As a FYI: it’s getting fixed in 2.1.0. http://bugs.modx.com/issues/90

See you around at that point.

Hi, for SEO users multiples URL are a big problem

let me explain you some case :
1. you offer a permalink not rewrited by a 301, google will find 1 content on 2 urls
2. your url look like http://mysite.com/my/url.html, some bot will have a look what there’s in http://mysite.com/my/
for you this page should be : http://mysite.com/my.html by modx rule. SO 1 content on 2 urls

many other case can be found, u MUST do a 301 to be seo strict if u do not ask for final URL.
Otherwise everytime that u make a content, you content will be dilute by your duplicates.

By the times, the competition for content is hard on the web, so be strict on url is VERY IMPORTANT

regards

Norbert

1. Create a "permalink" resource, and put a snippet on there which checks for the "id" param and uses $modx->sendRedirect() which is a 301 IIRC.
2. Default behaviour in Revo is to create container resources with just a slash as suffix. So you wouldn’t have mysite.com/my.html.

All this SEO strict stuff is missing one thing.. how will they get to the faulty link? If you’re consistent in using the [[~5]] or $modx->makeUrl(5) syntax they will get the right link to the page, based on your settings.