I'm not sure at all a 301 is correct in this scenario:

• Some uses "300 Multiple Choices"
• Google uses a "302 Found"
• Others use a "303 See Other" (like it was)

But there seems to be a consensus that 301 is not a good choice...

See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8325784/http-status-code-for-language-redirect

I also would say 301 is wrong.
It's meant for pages where the old one is no longer existant and was moved to a new place. Software which is a bit smarter (like for example RSS readers and search engines) usually update their stored links and never try the old link again.
I don't think that is what we want.

Let me explain a bit more:
The site where i ran into this had only one language (german) before. Now we decided to add english (more to come) and use the language code in the url for all languages (including default).
Google has indexed all "old" urls without the language code, but these are no longer valid now and so we have to tell google that they are moved permanently (this is what the seo expert i'm working with says).

Example:
http://www.example.com/ no longer exists and should be redirected to http://www.example.com/de

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/5092.

In that example you should really be using the option in the plugin NOT to
show the language code on the default language. So www.example.com still
exists for the german and the new url is only for the english
www.example.com/en

On 12 November 2014 10:40, Lars Vonnahme notifications@github.com wrote:

Let me explain a bit more:
The site where i ran into this had only one language (german) before. Now
we decided to add english (more to come) and use the language code in the
url for all languages (including default).
Google has indexed all "old" urls without the language code, but these are
no longer valid now and so we have to tell google that they are moved
permanently (this is what the seo expert i'm working with says).

Example:
http://www.example.com/ no longer exists and should be redirected to
http://www.example.com/de

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application
https://github.com/joomla/jissues at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/5092
http://issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/5092.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5092 (comment).

Brian Teeman
Co-founder Joomla! and OpenSourceMatters Inc.
http://brian.teeman.net/

First: thanks for looking at this!

SEO is pure fun: 10 people, 20 opinions ;-)

@smanzi
i followed the link and the others posted on stackexchange and also gave them to my seo expert. Will look deeper tomorrow. I might be wrong, but i think on one of googles pages i have read about using 301 would be the correct way - if i find this again, i'll post a link.

@Bakual
so this case seems to be the special one where it would be correct?! ;-)

@brianteeman
will talk with my seo expert. I cannot remember why we choose this way as it was decided a while ago (the "new" site is not online by now, so we could change it).

Ok, as i said: will talk to my seo expert and report back tomorrow (or maybe on friday).

If you are not online yet I'll surely follow @brianteeman advice and use the option of hiding the language code for the default language. Google will be really happy...

@lunalars
Probably your seo expert noticed duplicated content from Google Webmaster Tools thats why he advised 301 redirect, i agree.

I was using "Remove URL Language Code" set to "yes" for a year or more. So, for the default language "el" the links were redirected and removed "el" from the urls. And don't know why, but 2 weeks ago i got duplicated content from this option, so i decide to use language code, for both languages and i disabled this option. it makes more sense. (check the image).

From a seo perspective this is wrong. The language code should not be removed from the url. It's not logic for one language to use the code and for another not. Google likes urls to make sense even if something is obvious.

Of course this is only my opinion and probably we are here because google is making changes.. ;)

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/5092.

@lunalars There is a bug (see #4215 and #4221) in the rel="alternate" links that is causing this duplication. Just apply #4221 and you will not see duplicated any more...

@smanzi I am not lunalars :) Thanks for your help

I am not using "remove language url code from url" any more. But the duplicated content is been indexed as the image above because i was using "remove language code" and associations with menus and articles. I think this is my issue #5092. How the duplicated content is going to be fixed with 303 redirects? I think i need 301. Sorry but i am not an expert. :)

@ManuxGR Ooops! Sorry for mixing up usernames!
Sorry, but I'm now really busy: I will follow up with a complete post later.
Anyway:

• Your site was double-indexed because of the aforementioned bug.
• I wouldn't had gone the way to add the language code for the default language...
• The only solution I see is to use .htacces to redirect the unwanted URL to the good ones with 301 and...
• Submit a correct sitemap, and...
• Optional: Use Google Webmaster Tools to remove the unwanted URLs, and...
• Be patient!

@smanzi Thanks once again for your reply.
I can see there is something holding you back from me to apply this fix #5092, please when you find some time explain me. I assume that you already know that if "remove language code url" is set "no", then the same redirects will apply by core. For example the Joomla.com/smart/screen will be redirected to Joomla.com/en/smart/screen by default.
@infograf768 suggested in a comment not to use "remove language code url" if the site is using associations, and i am using a lot of them.
I have already overloaded htaccess with 301 path redirects, thats why i am looking into this automated fix.

@smanzi "Be patient!" - agree! The most important part of our work on seo :-)

Didn't test, but agree with @smanzi : #4221 should fix (at least a part) of the duplicated content problem. But if i remember correctly, there is (or was?) a similar problem with languageswitcher, which also adds the languagecode.

Talked to my seo expert today and he thinks, that it's more logical to use the languagecode for all languages as this results in a more unified url structure (and he did it succesfully like this in 2 other non-joomla projects). So, in this case we really need the 301 as there is no url without languagecode anymore.
For me this sounds logical and as i'm not a seo expert (just basic knowledge) i will have to follow him on this project and for now go with the "core-hack" to get 301 :-) (yes, i know, core-hack is bad, i've been there :-) the client is warned and gave his ok)

@ManuxGR I'm not sure what to do in your situation, but would again follow my seo expert and say it's for now better to keep the languagecode. But then - as you said - you would need the 301. If you are willing to pay the price, you could go with the core-hack for now, too.
By the way: we are also using associations and some htaccess redirects :-)

To me it seems there are different ways to do it right. Also i remember reading on google help page (sorry, again no link) that you can do it in different ways, as long as you avoid really bad things. Maybe, as there are these different opinions and needs, we can implement an options for this, to handle them? Yes, not too many options, please :-)

@lunalars Thanks for your opinion and for asking your seo expert. I agree. :)

But @smanzi is a coder and we need his detailed opinion so we can make a final decision that will work permanently.

I don't get it with #4221, this fix is only working when "remove url language code" is set to "yes" and because of language switcher pointing to wrong link and then a 303 redirect will apply.
BUT when the option is set to "no" the language switcher is working properly with associations and is pointing to the correct link no 303 redirect.

@ManuxGR me? a coder? You are greatly overestimating me! Well, I've been coding more or less since 1980, and two hands are not enough for enumerating the languages I had to learn, but as a Joomla coder I'm a real noob!

Now you will forgive me, but I have to make some history to wrap up what the problem is (and yes, IMHO we still have a problem).

I opened the #4215 issue because I discovered what I think is a bug in the Language Switcher module (remember, we have a Language Switcher module and a Language Filter plugin): Language Switcher generates links for the default language where the language code is not suppressed even if we set the Remove URL Language Code option.

Soon the attention shifted to a similar bug in the language filter and the rel="alternate" links it generates. This latter aspect was quickly fixed by @infograf768 with PR #4221

But... @infograf768 had some afterthoughts and closed the PR. A long discussion erupted that was finally cleared up by a SEO expert, @jessicadunbar with this post: #4221 (comment)

At this point #4221 saw the light, a similar PR #4425 for Joomla 2.5 was created and... everybody (including myself) forgot about the initial issue with the language switcher module!

So, here we are: Joomla is still responsible for the creation of double-indexed content (even when #4221 is applied) if we set the Remove URL Language Code option (I have evidence of this with a live site).

But... going to the wrong URL generated by the language switcher yield to a redirect to the correct one with a 303 - See Other HTTP status code, somebody could say. Well, Google doesn't give a damn and index the wrong URL as well. This, I didn't expect, really.

The w3.org document about status codes (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html) is not very clear about the 303. What I've read around, anyway, is that a 303 (contrary to a 301) does not pass page rank to the page to which one is redirected and is accepted as a valid URI, although the cached page is the one to which one is redirected. See http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/ very interesting

At this point I would say that:

• Language switcher must be fixed, and...
• I've changed my mind: 301 is what we need to redirect to non canonical URL!

My bad! Last line read:

• I've changed my mind: 301 is what we need to redirect to from non canonical URL!

Untested yet, but: if you accept not having the language code for the default language it should be quite easy to de-duplicate all URLs by putting this in .htacces:

RewriteRule ^gr/(.*)$ $1 [R=301,L]

If gr is your default language code.

I see it more difficult to redirect naked pages to the ones with the default language code... anybody has an idea?

... no the above doesn't works: I have to think it over... :-/

@smanzi don't bother about htaccess, finally i will use code language for both languages and 301 redirects instead of 303. And i wish me good luck... once again.....

Many thanks for you support and for explain me so detailed, you are so helpful. I am glad they are people like you around and lunarars. :) I am reading the links you attached.

I've created two new PRs that are "language related":

• Language Switcher: Remove the language code for the default language #5109 eliminates the language code for the default language from the Language Switcher
• Experimental version of the Language Filter #5110 is an extension of this PR (thanks @lunalars !). It does take into account some more cases, but it is a very preliminary PR.

There will be more to discuss as (after many and many tests) I've come to the conclusion that the possibility to eliminate the language code for the default language, while absolutely legit and without negative SEO impact if correctly implemented, is, at this time, full of issues and just a bit more of a kludge

The point here imho is to decide which is better: a 303 or a 301.

Code is another matter.

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/5092.

301, we have evidence that 303 created duplicated content. And language switcher should be fixed for next version so new websites dont have this problem.

As I commented on #5109, this will not work because of the set cookie.

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/5092.

@lunalars and all
After much thought, I think the 301 is fine when remove url language code is set to Yes.
But this PR is not correct as it sets the 301 at the wrong place as we need to fullfill all conditions

1. Remove URL Language Code is set to YES in the language filter
2. Search Engine Friendly URLs is set to Yes in Global configuration

I created a new PR for you to test:
#5129

@infograf768 and all
Thanks to @infograf768 i just noticed an error in my "Steps to reproduce":
it should be "Remove URL Language Code" is set to "No" (it's edited)
as i want to keep the language code for all languages.
Sorry for the confusion!
So i think this PR is still valid for the situation i described above, if there is a consensus, that 301 would fit for it, too.

Please just test #5129

@infograf768
Tested #5129 successfully, but it only applies, if "Remove URL Language Code" is set to "Yes" - in my example above it's set to "No".
Or am i missing something?

@lunalars
If url language code is set to NO, we do provide the prefix /en/ and, for these links, we never get a 303

@infograf768
In this case, if you call the URL without the language code (eg. if you find an old link on google), you will get a 303. This still happens after applying #5129.

no.
Look at my test site in #5129 and just enter an url without the prefix directly in the browser for en-GB.

It's working properly for me.

But what about negative SEO from bad competiros?

The url above is from secondary language and probably can not be find by spiders or humans so it's ok. I am just saying this could be a security whole or not?

Sorry this was for #5129

Folks, when commenting on a PR, do it in the correct PR.
@ManuxGR Do you mean this PR or the one I posted #5129

@infograf768 I've yet to test, but I think the condition @lunalars want to handle is the opposite:

• Old URL: without
• New URL: with

Yes sorry this was for #5129

oops!

Ref: #5092 (comment)

But what about negative SEO from bad competiros?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
And, if I look at your site : language code is present for both languages

If the link is a real 404, it's OK I guess.

Ok i forget about this

Maybe i'm blind :-)
As said #5129 works well for me, if "Remove URL Language Code" is set to "Yes" .
That's on your testsite and on my local testsite if i apply the settings you provided in your test instructions.

But this PR here (#5092) only applies, if "Remove URL Language Code" is set to "No" .

Again, when set to NO, there is NO 303.
Therefore we should NOT redirect to a 301

@infograf768 sorry if I post here again, but as you replied here I think it is better to keep all together.

You are right that there are no programmatically generated redirects, but there can be if one changes his site configuration from yes to no.

Sorry, but i get a 303 :-)
Will set up a test site in the evening an post the link and "instructioons" here.

Now i've set up a test site at http://www.lunadev.de with pure joomla 3.3.6 (if i should update to latest staging, please tell me!).
The only "hack" is a 301 redirect from non-www to www in htaccess.

1. "Remove URL Language Code" is set to "No"
2. in global config "SEF" is set to "Yes"
3. in global config "SEF rewrite" is set to "Yes"

Imagine the site had only 1 language (german) before and google has indexed all URLs without language code.

Now you just added english as the second language and applied the settings above.
If you now call the "old" homepage at http://www.lunadev.de (or any other "old" URL) without language code you will be redirected by 303 to the new URL with the language code.

You can check this at http://redirectdetective.com :
enter http://www.lunadev.de
or http://www.lunadev.de/startseite-de/8-deutsch/1-german-article-1

Eveything else works fine! No other redirects when using menu or language switcher on the site.

I hope this makes it more clear. If i mix up something, please tell me.

The real url of this site is:
http://www.lunadev.de/de/startseite-de/8-deutsch/1-german-article-1
NOT
http://www.lunadev.de/startseite-de/8-deutsch/1-german-article-1 // without the "de" prefix as you have set :
"Remove URL Language Code" to "No"

If you had an old homepage
http://www.lunadev.de/startseite-de/8-deutsch/1-german-article-1
Then set Remove URL Language Code to YES and make sure German is the default language.

Also, please post now in
#5129
as this PR is wrong and I am closing it.

Just one more question, as i think this does not belong in #5129 :
I absolutely agree with you on the "real URL", but what is (in your opinion) the correct way to handle the call of the "wrong" URL ?

If you had an old homepage
http://www.lunadev.de/startseite-de/8-deutsch/1-german-article-1
Then set Remove URL Language Code to YES and make sure German is the default language.

If the path is the same after "http://www.lunadev.de/", it will work.

This does not answer my last question.
And i can't change to yes as i can't decide this on my own.
But i'll be quiet now :-)

Lars, I would probably try to handle your situation within .htaccess