ECommerce site - Duplicate pages problem.
-
We have an eCommerce site with multiple products being displayed on a number of pages.
We use rel="next" and rel="prev" and have a display ALL which I understand Google should automatically be able to find.
-
Should we also being using a Canonical tag as well to tell google to give authority to the first page or the All Pages. Or was the use of the next and prev rel tags that we currently do adequate.
-
We currently display 20 products per page, we were thinking of increasing this to make fewer pages but they would be better as this which would make some later product pages redundant . If we add 301 redirects on the redundant pages, does anyone know of the sort of impact this might cause to traffic and seo ?.
General thoughts if anyone has similar problems welcome
-
-
Many thanks , you have been most helpful.
Yes, I see your point. I think we will have a look at implementing this on a couple of categories where we can monitor traffic and rankings . Then if it looks good, then will roll it out to the rest of the site.
Thank you.
Sarah
-
Essentially yes - pages 2+ of search just look "thin" to Google. They tend to have similar title tags, META descriptions, etc., and Google honestly isn't all that fond of indexing search pages in the first place (they don't want their search to land on your search). Those 2+ pages also don't tend to attract links or make a lot of sense for someone landing on them. By using META NOINDEX,FOLLOW, Google can crawl those searches to deeper pages, but the actually search pages don't dilute your overall site and search index.
Google's preferred method (or so they say) in 2012 is rel=prev/next, but I find that implementation can be much trickier than META NOINDEX. It's a difficult topic, and I honestly find that the ideal approach varies wildly from site to site. It's important to plan well, implement careful, and measure the results.
-
Hi Peter,
Many thanks for your answer. Very comprehensive and much appreciated There's certainly some good suggestions here.
Just quickly you mention about putting a NOINDEX FOLLOW on every page from 2 or 3 onwards.I take it , that's because later pages don't rank to well ?.
Is that the suggestion so the idea behind it that the link juice is being diluted to much. By Keeping only the first 2 pages say indexed etc, I would stand a better chance of ranking higher.
I will pass your suggestions on to my developer and see what we can come up from it. Will monitor and report back , hopefully with a sorted solutioin.
Once again , many thanks for sound advice.
Sarah.
-
Unfortunately, pagination + sorts gets ugly fast. Technically, the rel=prev/next tag should contain the sort parameter AND then you should canonical to the main pagination page. So, for example if you had a page like:
www.example.com/search.php?page=2&sort=asc
You should have tags like:
- Rel=Prev: http://www.example.com/search.php?page=1&sort=asc
- Rel=Next: http://www.example.com/search.php?page=3&sort=asc
- Canonical: http://www.example.com/search.php?page=2
In practice, it's incredibly hard to implement. So, you could do a couple of things:
(1) Block the sort_by parameter with Google Webmaster Tools parameter handling
(2) Use META NOINDEX, FOLLOW on all pages 2+ of search and sort URLs
I don't find Robots.txt works that well, in practice, and 800K blocked URLs can make Google jump. I'm actually confused by how Google is crawling the sorts at all (since they're form-driven). It looks like you put the sorts in your pagination links. Would it be possible to store any sorts in a cookie or session variable and not add those to links?
Given your current situation, and that Google has indexed thousands of sort URLs (from what I can see), I think the Google Webmaster Tools approach might be the safest. This is a complex problem, though, and you may need to consult someone.
-
Hi ,
In Answer to your point on to Question 2 , Currently the maximum number of pages we have is 4 pages plus a View All for a few of our products but most products are split on 2 pages plus a view all.
For the largest product example we have 83 products broken down as Page 1 to 4 has 20 products , page5 has 3 and View all - 83 products. rel Prev and rel Next are on the pages and View all has Nothing on it (Is that okay). The title tags are duplicated on the numerous pages , so I was going to add in page 2, 3, 4 etc to sort that.
I was going to increase the number of products per page to 30 , which would in effect put me down to 3 pages plus View all but more importantly , I thought I would also get stronger link value and less dilution hence better SEO .
The pages don't rank partially well at all well but on google speed test, I think we score 85/100 anyway , so from a speed point of view, it should'nt be a problem. Was just worried, that big changes like this could have a dramatic effect .
The url incase your interested is http://www.bestathire.co.uk/rent/Scaffold_towers/266
Many thanks
Very much appreciated.
Sarah.
-
Hi ,
Many Thanks for your reply,
We do have pagination and sorts like listing products a-z , z-a , price low to high and high to low etc which all generate different urls but we have put in the robot.txt file for google not to spider them. See below .
Also from looking at WMT is says it has blocked886,996 url's in the past 90 days. Our site has approx 54,000 indexed pages.
Disallow: */sort_by:Product.price%20ASC
Disallow: */sort_by:Product.price%20DESC
Disallow: */sort_by:Product.title%20ASC
Disallow: */sort_by:Product.title%20DESC
Disallow: */sort_by:Product.distance%20ASC
Disallow: */sort_by:Product.distance%20DESC
Disallow: */stealth:onAre you suggesting we do the Canonical the sorts aas well for saftey incase we have missed anything ?
Sarah
-
(1) DON'T canonical to the first page of results - Google definitely has issues with that. If you've got rel=prev/next in place, then I wouldn't canonical to "View All", either. They're kind of competing signals. You can use rel=prev/next with rel=canonical, but it's a bit complicated. Basically, it's for situations where you have pagination AND some other parameter, like a sort.
(2) If you increase it, just make sure it doesn't negatively impact users or load-times (might be worth A/B testing, honestly). Are you saying that you might end up with a URL like "?page=7" which basically doesn't exist because now you'll have less pages? I think you might be safer just letting that 404 and have Google recrawl the new structure. The odds of having any links to Page 7 of search results (inbound links, that is) are very low, and just letting those pages die off may be safer.
-
I think the best solution to get something properly done on your website, if you're displaying a page with 20 products (by default) and it has a complicated extension to see the next one ( domain.com/?abc=123etc#321 ) you have a significant problem that you should be concerned about more - whether it's domain.com/category/page/1/ and page/2/.
In theory, page/1/ and page/2/ (blog style) contain the same content as the home page (/1/ or /). Some practices are noindex,follow for any page [2-∞). You should definitely consider rel=canonical across the site though. It's essential. As well as rel="next" rel="prev".
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
-
Duplicate content problem
Hi there, I have a couple of related questions about the crawl report finding duplicate content: We have a number of pages that feature mostly media - just a picture or just a slideshow - with very little text. These pages are rarely viewed and they are identified as duplicate content even though the pages are indeed unique to the user. Does anyone have an opinion about whether or not we'd be better off to just remove them since we do not have the time to add enough text at this point to make them unique to the bots? The other question is we have a redirect for any 404 on our site that follows the pattern immigroup.com/news/* - the redirect merely sends the user back to immigroup.com/news. However, Moz's crawl seems to be reading this as duplicate content as well. I'm not sure why that is, but is there anything we can do about this? These pages do not exist, they just come from someone typing in the wrong url or from someone clicking on a bad link. But we want the traffic - after all the users are landing on a page that has a lot of content. Any help would be great! Thanks very much! George
Technical SEO | | canadageorge0 -
Duplicate pages problem
The Moz report shows that I have 600 Duplicate pages, How can I locate the problem and how can I fix it?
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
SEO Mox reporting all pages & titles as duplicate, but this is not the case.
HI, I am confused . This week SEOMoz is reporting that all my pages and pages titles are duplicate. This is not the case. I have added geo meta tags to each page - could this be causing the duplicate page content condition? I have no theory about the title duplicate condition. I have uploaded pdfs of these seomoz reports here: http://www.2shared.com/document/JAgS2Ni9/Issue_-Duplicate_Page_Content.html http://www.2shared.com/document/gyXcMsoP/Issue-Duplicate_Page_Title-.html Help please. thanks.
Technical SEO | | RichardB20 -
ECommerce site - Duplicate pages problem.
We have an eCommerce site with multiple products being displayed on a number of pages. We use rel="next" and rel="prev" and have a display ALL which I understand Google should automatically be able to find. Should we also being using a Canonical tag as well to tell google to give authority to the first page or the All Pages. Or was the use of the next and prev rel tags that we currently do adequate. We currently display 20 products per page, we were thinking of increasing this to make fewer pages but they would be better as this which would make some later product pages redundant . If we add 301 redirects on the redundant pages, does anyone know of the sort of impact this might cause to traffic and seo ?. General thoughts if anyone has similar problems welcome
Technical SEO | | SarahCollins0 -
Will one line of duplicate content drag down my landing page?
I am using copyscape to check for duplicate content on my landing pages. I found three sites that have the exact same sentence as mine, on a page that I rank well for on one of two key terms related to the product. The sentence is not essential to my product page. Do I risk losing page one rank on a key search term when I remove that sentence on my site, in hopes of possibly improving the page on the second key search term? Do I leave it alone? This is an older "template" site with very little that I can do SEO-wise, and I have managed to get a few key prodcut landing pages on page one of Google. It has seen a drop in rank on many landing pages post-panda, and I'm doing my best to clean up what I can. Do I leave well enough alone for a page one rank on one term, or swap out that sentence in hopes of getting better rank on two keywords?
Technical SEO | | Ticket_King0 -
Removing robots.txt on WordPress site problem
Hi..am a little confused since I ticked the box in WordPress to allow search engines to now crawl my site (previously asked for them not to) but Google webmaster tools is telling me I still have robots.txt blocking them so am unable to submit the sitemap. Checked source code and the robots instruction has gone so a little lost. Any ideas please?
Technical SEO | | Wallander0 -
Canonical tag in preferred and duplicate page
Hi, I have a super spiffy (not) CMS that tends to create some pages at the root level of the site (not where I want it) i.e. www.site.com/page.htm as well as the desired location i.e. www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm . Now obviously a canonical tag inserted into the URL at the undesired location would be the best option, however the source code is exactly the same for both pages (can’t change this) i.e. if I put the canonical tag that reads www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm"/> it will appear in the head section of both pages, the desired URL and the non desired URL. Will a canonical tag inserted into the head section of a the preferred URL directing the search engine spiders pretty much to itself cause more grieft than the solution it offers re duplicate content ? Marc
Technical SEO | | NRMA0 -
Avoiding duplicate content/same pages
hi I have been checking through all the Q and A but i i'm still not sure how you get http://www.domain.co.uk/index.html to be just http://www.domain.co.uk/? Do you add canonical to the index page to point to the page you prefer and then add a 301 redirect? thanks
Technical SEO | | challen0