Is there an easier way from the server to prevent duplicate page content?
-
I know that using either 301 or 302 will fix the problem of duplicate page content. My question would be; is there an easier way of preventing duplicate page content when it's an issue with the URL. For example:
URL: http://example.com
My guess would be like it says here, that it's a setting issue with the server.
If anyone has some pointers on how to prevent this from occurring, it would be greatly appreciated.
-
I have seen tons of duplicate content errors in the SEO Moz REport. The pages that I have are same but the sidebar ads and others are dynamic based on the store they are coming from. So we send store name as query string.http://www.appymall.com/apps/numberland-learn-numbers-with-montessori%20&store=Appy-back-2-school if you look at teh source code, we defined the canonicalURL. The system is still calling these duplicates. Can you help address this issue? What we are doing wroong?I did checked the on-page keyword tool and it has green check after
Canonical URL Tag Usage
-
Thanks. Did the server-level change, works great, the pages are having no problems resolving canonically, and the changes have been accounted for in Google and Bing's webmaster data since the 24th. Only, one other thing also happened at that same time: my site lurched downward another notch.
This is what usually happens when I do something that's been recommended by SEOs.
-
I've never done one of these yet so I will Google how to do it. I'm waiting to find out the type of server it is.
-
Yes, a 301-redirect is almost always a server-level directive. It's not a tag or HTML element. You can create them with code (in the header of the page), but that's typically harder and only for special cases.
-
Okay, so the code variant will rely on the type of server?
-
If that's the case Dr. Pete, that saves me from having to add the tag to 51 pages. I already have one on the homepage. Thank you.
-
As long as the tactic you use returns a proper 301, there's really no way that's better than any other. Ryan's approach works perfectly well for Apache-hosted sites.
-
In most cases, I don't find sitewide canonical tags to really be necessary, but if they're done right, they can't hurt. The trick is that people often screw them up (and bad canonicals can be really bad). I do like one on the home-page, because it sweeps up all the weird variants that are so common for home pages.
-
Robert check this article out re: frontpage and htaccess
Frontpage is an html editor that helps you build a site. Apache is a server that site can run on. It sounds like you have both.
You'll want to edit the .htaccess file in the root folder of your website, wherever the file for your homepage sits.
-
Make sure you have a space after the second quotation:
-
Thank you for expounding on this issue I thought it fit.
-
Dr. Peter, thank you for clarifying this. I do see the R=301 now but I didn't see it before.
That's what I figured. Is their a preferred 301 code to use?
Yes, I will be sure to use it internally as well. I can see where that would be a mess. Thank you again for sharing your expertise.
-
I'm still getting a bad canonical problem, even with every page having a rel="canonical". It even shows up in SEOmoz's stats, with it indexing 300+ pages when there's only 180-odd. Trouble is, the .htaccess file says "FrontPage" not Apache. Would your .htaccess thingy for Apache work there? And is it the .htaccess that's in the url's folder with the rest of the site's regular files, or one that's in a prev. folder?
-
Hi Dr Pete, Would correcting the current issue with a 301 and adding the rel=canonical tags to each page be the best option? My thought being any future duplicate content issues that may occur (not caused from this issue) would be avoided.
-
Sorry I just read this again, the 301 will fix the URL issue site wide.
-
Expounding is what I do Other people use different words for it...
-
Just to clarify, the rewrite that Ryan is proposing IS a 301-redirect (see the "R=301") - it's just one way to implement it. Done right, it can be used sitewide.
It's perfectly viable to also use canonicals (and I definitely think they're great to have on the home-page, for example), but I think the 301 is more standard practice here. It's best for search crawlers AND visitors to see your canonical URL (www vs. non-www, whichever you choose). That leads people to link to the "proper" version, bookmark it, promote it on social, etc.
Make sure, too, to use the canonical version internally. It's amazing how often people 301-redirect to "www." but then link to the non-www version internally, or vise-versa. Consistent signals are important.
-
Thank you again SEOKeith, I understand what has to be done. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what needed to be done. Yes, the rel canonical tag will reflect whatever the page is I'm adding it. Since I didn't get the errors for it I never added it to my other sites; so now I have to it for all of them. Fun...
-
I recommend you update each page, note the rel canonical tag will be different for each page. And 50 pages should take you less than 15 mins
-
SEOKeith, the problem is sitewide, all 52 pages. I was hoping to solve the problem in the server and avoid coding each page. But from what I'm gathering is, even if I use the 301 redirect I should still add the rel="canonical" on each page to avoid scraping. This tells the SE that this page is the only page to index and crawl.
Lol, sorry I didn't recognize the acronym. Yes, I have a site that is through Wordpress and one that is through Joomla. The one that I'm having issues with is not through a CMS though.
-
Brian, it's the same thing just a different method both 301.
No it would not cover the issues site wide only for the home page.
CMS = Content Management System (an example would be Wordpress or Drupal).
You should still do the rel="canonical" site wide (on each page).
All make sense ?
-
Thank you SEOKeith, what would be the difference between using a 301 in the .htaccess verses the code Ryan suggested <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">?</ifmodule>
Also if I use the 301 redirect in the .htaccess would it cover this issue site wide?
Okay so the space needs to be there.
No, I don't use a CMS?
-
Brian, if you 301 the example.com to www.example.com that will get rid of the duplicate URL issue server side. (this will resolve your current duplicate content issue).
Additionally I recommend you add the rel=canonical it will prevent other potential duplicate content issues that may arise and is considered good practice to implement.
The tag looks correct, note the space after the domain in quotes:
Are you using a CMS ?
-
Thank you SEOKeith! I definitely want to make sure I don't use any bad practices to fix this issue and thank you for clarifying that about the code.
So if I apply the code and fix the issue from the server by making the URL www.example.com
I would then add the rel=canonical tag to prevent scraping.
Would this be the correct URL to put in the tag?
-
The rewrite rule above is not bad practice, it will fix the issue with your URL's
However it is good practice to use the rel=canonical tag on your site additionally to prevent any other duplicate content issues.
In short the rel=canonical tag tells Google which URL you wish to use, preventing Google from thinking you have duplicate content if multiple URL's exist for the same page.
-
Thank you Keri, that's what I'm thinking but I want to make sure. Thank you for messaging Dr. Pete, I hope maybe he can expound on this.
-
Generally, if you can fix it with code, that tends to be a bit better than the canonical tag, from my understanding. I've emailed Dr. Pete and asked him to contribute to this thread as well, as he's an expert on canonical tags.
-
Thanks a lot guys this is some great information. Let me get this straight.
Is solving this issue with the code below a bad practice?
<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine on</ifmodule>
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]If it's not a bad practice and I implement the code to stop the issue, you are saying I should still use a rel=canonical tag to prevent scraping?
-
You should set up the correct Canonicalization rewrites at the server level with IIS or .htaccess. (Not sure which one you have). If you know what type of sever you are on, then you can find all the correct rewrites. (www, non www, lowercase, trailing slash / , etc.)
For example, here is a great post if you have IIS. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/what-every-seo-should-know-about-iis
And you should also use rel=canonical tags.
-
I always use rel="canonical"
-
Rel Canonical is considered a best practice in SEO, so you should just always include it in your pages, even if they're the only copy of the content you know of. It will help prevent any scrapers from stealing your content down the road.
And re: you're sorta right. Technically speaking, what we're doing with that htaccess code is 301 redirecting every URL, either to the www or non-www version. So say you go with my method anyone going to http://example.com just gets 301'd over to http://www.example.com
-
Thank you Ryan, that is exactly what I expected the problem to be but really couldn't figure out how to address it or solve it. You explained it very well and I appreciate the suggested code to use as well. I should be able to figure it out from here.
Thank you again!
-
Thank you Brent and kjay. Take a look at Ryan's answer, I think that is what I was shooting for. If I can eliminate the problem of an ambiguous URL at the server level then I will not need rel="canonical or 301/302. What do you guys think?
-
Personally I would do the following:
- Set rel="canonical" as Brent says below
- 301 redirect the preferred URL, so if you are using www.example.com redirect example.com, that way if anyone points links at example.com "most" of the juice will pass over (this will probably fix the issue you have posted about)
- Set the referred URL in Google web master tools
If you are using CMS like Wordpress rel="canonical" will probably already be taken care of for your website, you can check this by viewing the source or using SEO Moz's on-page keyword optimization tool.
-
Actually in cases like your example above its more an issue of an ambiguous URL rather than actual duplicate content.
The thing to do in the example above is to choose which version of your site you want (with www or without) to always use, and then set your server accordingly. In Apache this means using your .htaccess file.
If you decide to always display www (my preferred way) then this should be in your .htaccess:
<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine on</ifmodule>
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]If you want your URLS to not use www:
<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine on</ifmodule>
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.(.+)$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://%1%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301] -
You should definitely setup your site Canonicalization, and you should also utilize rel=canonical tags to help distinguish which page is the actual page.
For example, if you want to identify that www.example.com is the correct url, then you would use the following:
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
-
I really need some help with Magento and Duplicate Page Content results I;m getting
Hi, We use Magento for our eCommerce platform and I'm getting a number of duplicate page content results. It mainly concerns the duplicate page content errors for our category pages. Firstly It seems like the product type and filter options highlighted in the picture are causing duplicate page content Also one particularity category is getting a lot from duplicate page content errors , http://www.tidy-books.co.uk/shop-all-products I understand that this category page is using duplicate pages of other category pages so I set this to exclude them from the site map but it looks likes its till being picked up? I've attached the csv file showing these errors as well. - > Any help would be massively appreciated Thanks filter.png moz-tidy-books-uk-crawl_issues-01-OCT-2014.csv
Technical SEO | | tidybooks0 -
Big page of clients - links to individual client pages with light content - not sure if canonical or no-follow - HELP
Not sure what best practice here is: http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ Is this is a situation where I'm best off adding canonical tags back to the main clients page, or to the practice area each client falls under? No-following all these links and adding canonical? No-follow/No-index all client pages? need some advice here...
Technical SEO | | simplycary0 -
Duplicate Content Problems
Hi I am new to the seomoz community I have been browsing for a while now. I put my new website into the seomoz dashboard and out of 250 crawls I have 120 errors! So the main problem is duplicate content. We are a website that finds free content sources for popular songs/artists. While seo is not our main focus for driving traffic I wanted to spend a little time to make sure our site is up to standards. With that said you can see when two songs by an artist are loaded. http://viromusic.com/song/125642 & http://viromusic.com/song/5433265 seomoz is saying that it is duplicate content even though they are two completely different songs. I am not exactly sure what to do about this situation. We will be adding more content to our site such as a blog, artist biographies and commenting maybe this will help? Although if someone was playing multiple bob marley songs the biography that is loaded will also be the same for both songs. Also when a playlist is loaded http://viromusic.com/playlist/sldvjg on the larger playlists im getting an error for to many links on the page. (some of the playlists have over 100 songs) any suggestions? Thanks in advance and any tips or suggestions for my new site would be greatly appreciated!
Technical SEO | | mikecrib10 -
Duplicate content vs. less content
Hi, I run a site that is currently doing very well in google for the terms that we want. We are 1,2 or 3 for our 4 targeted terms, but havent been able to jump to number one in two categories that I would really like to. In looking at our site, I didn't realize we have a TON of duplicate content as seen by SEO moz and I guess google. It appears to be coming from our forum, we use drupal. RIght now we have over 4500 pages of duplicate content. Here is my question: How much is this hurting us as we are ranking high. Is it better to kill the forum (which is more community service than business) and have a very tight site SEO-wise, or leave the forum even with the duplicate content. Thanks for your help. Erik
Technical SEO | | SurfingNosara0 -
Testing for duplicate content and title tags
Hi there, I have been getting both Duplicate Page content and Duplicate Title content warnings on my crawl diagnostics report for one of my campaigns. I did my research, and implemented the preferred domain setting in Webmaster Tools. This did not resolve the crawl diagnostics warnings, and upon further research I discovered the preferred domain would only be noted by Google and not other bots like Roger. My only issue was that when I ran an SEOmoz crawl test on the same domain, I saw none of the duplicate content or title warnings yet they still appear on my crawl diagnostics report. I have now implemented a fix in my .htaccess file to 301 redirect to the www. domain. I want to check if it's worked, but since the crawl test did not show the issue last time I don't think I can rely on that. Can you help please? Thanks, Claire
Technical SEO | | SEOvet0 -
Duplicate Content - Just how killer is it?
Yesterday I received my ranking report and was extremely disappointed that my high-priority pages dropped in rank for a second week in a row for my targeted keywords. This is after running them through the gradecard and getting As for each of them on the keywords I wanted. I looked at my google webmaster tools and saw new duplicate content pages listed, which were the ones I had just modified to get my keyword targeting better. In my hastiness to work on getting the keyword usage up, I neglected to prevent these descriptions from coming up when viewing the page with filter parameters, sort parameters and page parameters... so google saw these descriptions as duplicate content (since myurl.html and myurl.html?filter=blah are seen as different). So my question: is this the likely culprit for some pretty drastic hits to ranking? I've fixed this now, but are there any ways to prevent this in the future? (I know _of _canonical tags, but have never used them, and am not sure if this applies in this situation) Thanks! EDIT: One thing I forgot to ask as well: has anyone inflicted this upon themselves? And how long did it take you to recover?
Technical SEO | | Ask_MMM0 -
Different TLD's same content - duplicate content? - And a problem in foreign googles?
Hi, Operating from the Netherlands with customers troughout Europe we have for some countries the same content. In the netherlands and Belgium Dutch is spoken and in Germany and Switserland German is spoken. For these countries the same content is provided. Does Google see this as duplicate content? Could it be possible that a german customer gets the Swiss website as a search result when googling in the German Google? Thank you for your assistance! kind regards, Dennis Overbeek Dennis@acsi.eu
Technical SEO | | SEO_ACSI0 -
Duplicate content question with PDF
Hi, I manage a property listing website which was recently revamped, but which has some on-site optimization weaknesses and issues. For each property listing like http://www.selectcaribbean.com/property/147.html there is an equivalent PDF version spidered by google. The page looks like this http://www.selectcaribbean.com/pdf1.php?pid=147 my question is: Can this create a duplicate content penalty? If yes, should I ban these pages from being spidered by google in the robots.txt or should I make these link nofollow?
Technical SEO | | multilang0