How do I identify what is causing my Duplicate Page Content problem?
-
Hello,
I'm trying to put my finger on what exactly is causing my duplicate page content problem... For example, SEOMoz is picking up these four pages as having the same content:
http://www.penncare.net/ambulancedivision/braunambulances/express.aspx
http://www.penncare.net/ambulancedivision/recentdeliveries/millcreekparamedicservice.aspx
http://www.penncare.net/ambulancedivision/recentdeliveries/monongaliaems.aspx
http://www.penncare.net/softwaredivision/emschartssoftware/emschartsvideos.aspx
As you can tell, they really aren't serving the same content in the body of the page. Anybody have an idea what might be causing these pages to show up as Duplicate Page Content? At first I thought it was the photo gallery module that might be causing it, but that only exists on two of the pages...
Thanks in advance!
-
Ah right - OK then.
With regards to data coming back from SEOmoz's crawler, I might be tempted to ask them what it is seeing. I should really have a look at this myself because I haven't yet.
-
I'm currently getting that information from Moz's own web crawler wherein it tells me the pages of that have Duplicate Page Content and the other URLs that that duplicate content exists on.
With regard to the 301's - I have rewrite rules setup to 1.) set all requests to lowercase 2.) trim off home.aspx 3.) append www. to the beginning of the request, etc. When processed these should function as a single redirect / rewrite.
-
Before looking at the duplicate content (what did you use to find there is duplicate content?)... a quick question - you have a lot of 301's. Just want to check, are these just a single redirect or a redirect of a redirect etc?
-
I would add some content to these pages to help differentiate. None of them are text heavy so it may be hard for spiders to see a difference. Add a summary, maybe a text translation of what is in the vids, etc
-
Thanks for your reply... I guess more specifically I was wondering what it was about these particular page elements that makes search engines incapable of deciphering them from one another.
-
- Search engines don't know which version(s) to include/exclude from their indices
- Search engines don't know whether to direct the link metrics (trust, authority, anchor text, link juice, etc.) to one page, or keep it separated between multiple versions
- Search engines don't know which version(s) to rank for query results
When duplicate content is present, site owners suffer rankings and traffic losses and search engines provide less relevant results.
Hope this helps!
Resources, http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Using a query string for linked, static landing pages - is this good practice?
My company has a page with links for each of our dozen office locations as well as a clickable map. These offices are also linked in the footer of every page along with their phone number. When one of these links is clicked, the visitor is directed to a static page with a picture of the office, contact information, a short description, and some other information. The URL for these pages is displayed as something like http:/example.com/offices.htm?office_id=123456, with seemingly random ID numbers at the end depending on the office that remain static. I know first off that this is probably bad SEO practice, as the URL should be something like htttp://example.com/offices/springfield/ My question is, why is there a question mark in the page URL? I understand that it represents a query string, but I'm not sure why it's there to begin with. A search query should not required if they are just static landing pages, correct?. Is there any reason at all why they would be queries? Is this an issue that needs to be addressed or does it have little to no impact on SEO?
Web Design | | BD690 -
Unique content but exactly the same graphical layout - a problem?
Hello, I have a coaching website at www.bobweikel.com I want to make a second coaching website with the same exact wordpress theme, totally identical except a slightly different logo image. Everything the same. The only difference is that all the content will be unique on the new site. Does it matter to Google that the graphics are absolutely identical? I assume it's fine, I just am making sure.
Web Design | | BobGW0 -
Could our drop in organic rankings have been caused by improper mobile site set-up?
Site: 12 year old financial service 'information' site with lead gen business model. Historically has held top 10 positions for top keywords and phrases. Background: The organic traffic from Google has fallen to 50% of what it was over the past 4 months compared to the same months last year. While several potential factors could be responsible/contributing (not limited to my pro-active removal of a dozen old emat links that may be perceived as unnatural despite no warning), this drop coincides with the same period the 'mobile site' was launched. Because I admittedly know the least about this potential cause, I am turning to the forum for assistance. Because the site is ~200 pages and contains many 'custom' pages with financial tables, forms, data pulled from 3rd parties, custom/different layouts we opted for creating a mobile site of only the top 12 most popular pages/topics just to have a mobile presence (instead of re-coding the entire site to make it responsive utilizing a mobile css). -These mobile pages were set up in an "m." subdomain. -We used bi-directional tagging placing a rel=canonical tag on the mobile page, and a rel=alternate tag on the desktop page. This created a loop between the pages, as advised by Google. -Some mobile pages used content from a sub page, not the primary desktop page for a particular topic. This may have broken the bi-directional 'loop', meaning the rel=canonical on the mobile page would point to a subpage, where the rel=alternate would point to the primary desktop page, even though the content did not come from that page, necessarily. The primary desktop page is the one that ranks for related keywords. In these cases, the "loop" would be broken. Is this a cause for concern? Could the authority held by the desktop page not be transferred to the mobile version, or the mobile page 'pull away' or disperse the strength of the desktop page if that 'loop' was not connected? Could not setting up the bi-directional tags correctly cause a drop in the organic rankings? -Our developer verified the site is set up according to Google's guidelines for identifying device screen size and serving appropriate version of page. -Are there any tools or utilities that I can use to identify issues, and/or verify everything is configured correctly? -Are we missing anything important in the set-up/configuration? -Could the use of a brand new subdomain 'm.' in and of itself be causing issues? -Have I identified any negative seo practices or pitfalls? Am I missing or overlooking something? While i would have preferred maintaining a single, responsive, site with mobile css, it was not realistic given the various layouts, and owner's desire to only offer the top pages in mobile format. The mobile site may have nothing to do with the organic drop, but I'd like to rule it out if so, and I have so many questions. If anyone could address my concerns, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Greg
Web Design | | seagreen0 -
My 404 page is showing a 4xx error. How can that be fixed?
My actual 404 page is giving a 4xx error.
Web Design | | sbetzen
The page address is http://www.ecowindchimes.com/v/404.asp It loads fine... it is the page all 404's are directed to. Why is it showing a 404 error. The page works. How can this be fixed? Stephen0 -
Does Google penalize duplicate website design?
Hello, We are very close to launching five new websites, all in the same business sector. Because we would like to keep our brand intact, we are looking to use the same design on all five websites. My question is, will Google penalize the sites if they have the same design? Thank you! Best regards,
Web Design | | Tiberiu
Tiberiu0 -
How not to get penalized by having a Single Page Interface (SPI) ?
Guys, I run a real estate website where my clients pay me to advertise their properties. The thing is, from the beginning, I had this idea about a user interface that would remain entirely on the same page. On my site the user can filter the properties on the left panel, and the listings (4 properties at each time) are refreshed on the right side, where there is pagination. So when the user clicks on one property ad, the ad is loaded by ajax below the search panel in the same page .. there's a "back up" button that the user clicks to go back to the search panel and click on another property. People are loving our implementation and the user experience, so I simply can't let go of this UI "inovation" just for SEO, because it really is something that makes us stand out from our competitors. My question, then, is: how not to get penalized in SEO by having this Single Page Interface, because in the eyes of Google users might not be browsing my site deep enough ?
Web Design | | pqdbr0 -
Could Website redesign be a cause of drop in rankings?
We had a complete redesign of our website and moved it over to wordpress several months ago. As url's changed, we had appropriate 301 redirects done. Rankings for our top keywords dropped, but others remained intact. Our SEO company told us rankings drop when a redesign is done, but I thought if we did all redirects properly (which they approved), it wouldn't be much of a problem. Additionally, we've been steadily adding good new content. Any advice?
Web Design | | rdreich490