SEOMOZ and non-duplicate duplicate content
-
Hi all,
Looking through the lovely SEOMOZ report, by far its biggest complaint is that of perceived duplicate content. Its hard to avoid given the nature of eCommerce sites that oestensibly list products in a consistent framework.
Most advice about duplicate content is about canonicalisation, but thats not really relevant when you have two different products being perceived as the same.
Thing is, I might have ignored it but google ignores about 40% of our site map for I suspect the same reason. Basically I dont want us to appear "Spammy". Actually we do go to a lot of time to photograph and put a little flavour text for each product (in progress).
I guess my question is, that given over 700 products, why 300ish of them would be considered duplicates and the remaning not?
Here is a URL and one of its "duplicates" according to the SEOMOZ report:
http://www.1010direct.com/DGV-DD1165-970-53/details.aspx
http://www.1010direct.com/TDV-019-GOLD-50/details.aspxThanks for any help people
-
The point I'm trying to get across is this:
"I asked the question of why these pages are considered duplicate, the answer appears to be : because textually they are even if visually they are not."
I don't think that's the complete answer, or even the most important part of the answer. Surely having mostly similar content across pages won't help, but as I've tried to point out, there are other factors that come into play here. It's not just about the content, but putting the content into context for the search engines. In order for them to understand what it is they're looking it, there's more that's important than just the content.
Michel
-
I think this highlights the fundamental problem with SEO and
eCommerce sites.We are all aware that the ultimate aim for search engines and
therefore ultimately SEO is to add value to users. But is "value" the
same for an eCommerce site as it is for a blog, or a travel information site or
a site offering information on health and advice?In my opinion, it is not. If I am looking to make a purchase, I
am looking for a site that is responsive, easy to navigate, has good imagery to
help me visualise, is secure and doesn’t clutter with in-your-face promotional
info, and of course offers value for money.Unique content therefore doesn’t really factor into it too much. Its hard enough for us, but I can only imagine how difficult it is for a company selling screws or rope, just how much creativity does that take to provide unique content for 3.5 inch brass screws over 2.5 inch steel ones?
The current mantra is to stop worrying about SEO tricks, and
focus on building a site with value. But this particular issue is an indication
we are still not there with that utopia yet.For example, as pointed out in the posts above .. these pages are considered duplicate, because by percentage the variable information is minimal; If you look at our product page we put the functionality of filling in your prescription below the product to make it
easier for the customer, but in order to solve the "percentage unique" issue, we would need to move that onto another page. Basically, we need to reduce value (convenience) to appear to add value (uniqueness).Anyway, little point complaining, I asked the question of why these pages are considered duplicate, the answer appears to be : because textually they are even if visually they are not.
I could be worrying about nothing, I believe all these pages are indexed (through crawling), its just a good proportion of our sitemap is being overlooked, I am assuming its perceived duplication as suggested in SEOMOZ. That in turn makes me concerned google is marking us down as spammy.
I appreciate all your comments.
Thanks
Paul
-
I do not agree. I see these kinds of pages on e-commerce websites on a daily basis. For webshops that sell only a certain kind of product, almost all product pages will look alike.
In this case, the H1 is different, the page title is different, and the description is different. This is only a small portion of the page but that's not uncommon, so I would argue that it cannot be just that.
I would look into URLs, marking up your data using http://schema.org/Product, possibly making small changes to accomodate the tags. For instance splitting up brand, color etc. so that you can mark them accordingly.
-
Tom has this spot on. Google doesn't only look for direct duplication, but also very similar, and these really are I'm afraid.
You need to find ways to make each page unique in its own right - let Google see that no two pages are the same and there is a real reason to rank them.
-
I wonder if the details.aspx has something to do with it?
www.1010direct.com/TDV-019-GOLD-50/details.aspx
www.1010direct.com/DGV-DD1165-970-53/details.aspxBasically, both pages are called details.aspx. Depending on how you look at it, you have 2 pages that are named the same (with mostly similar content, though not unusual for e-commerce websites) in different subfolders. I'm not sure if there's some kind of difference in the way Moz works, and if that's part of why Moz marks this as duplicate content?
Are you unable to create 'prettier' URL's? Such as:
www.1010direct.com/tim-dilsen-019-gold-50-glasses.aspx
www.1010direct.com/dolce-gabbana-dd1165-970-53-glasses.aspxWith or without the aspx of course.
-
I'm not surprised Moz is flagging those pages as duplicate content and I wouldn't be totally surprised if Google did in the future.
Put it this way, the pages are identical bar for a single sentence title description, a price and roughly a 20 word section describing the product. Everything else is identical. It's duplicate.
Look at it another through Google's eyes. Here's how the two pages look when crawled by Google:
(If that doesn't work, try yourself at http://www.seo-browser.com/)
Just look at how much text and HTML is shared between the two pages. Yes, there are key differences on the pages (namely the product), but the Google bot nor the Mozbot is going to recognise those elements when it crawls it.
Presuming Google ignores the site nav, it still has a bunch of text and crawlable elements that are shared - pretty much everything under the product description. It doesn't see the individual images and the flavour text is frankly too small to make any sort of dent in the duplicate content %.
I'd seriously recommend at revising how your product pages look - there's far too much repeated content per page (you can still promote these things on each page but in a much, much smaller way) and the individual descriptions for the products, in my eyes, are not substantial enough.
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
-
Despite canonical duplicate content in WMT
Hi, 2 weeks ago we've made big changes in title and meta descriptions. To solve the missing title and descriptions. Also set the right canonical. Now i see that in WMT despite the canonical it shows duplicates in meta descriptions and titles. i've setup the canonical like this:
Technical SEO | | Leonie-Kramer
1. url: www.domainname.com/category/listing-family/productname
2. url: www.domainname.com/category/listing-family/productname-more-info The canonical on both pages is like this: I'm aware of creating duplicate titles and descriptions, caused by the cms we use and also caused by wrong structure of category/products (we'll solve that nest year) that's why i wanted the canonical, but now it's not going any better, did i do something wrong with the canonical?0 -
Duplicate Content Question (E-Commerce Site)
Hi All, I have a page that ranks well for the keyword “refurbished Xbox 360”. The ranking page is an eCommerce product details page for a particular XBOX 360 system that we do not currently have in stock (currently, we do not remove a product details page from the website, even if it sells out – as we bring similar items into inventory, e.g. more XBOX 360s, new additional pages are created for them). Long story short, given this way of doing things, we have now accumulated 79 “refurbished XBOX 360” product details pages across the website that currently, or at some point in time, reflected some version of a refurbished XBOX 360 in our inventory. From an SEO standpoint, it’s clear that we have a serious duplicate content problem with all of these nearly identical XBOX 360 product pages. Management is beginning to question why our latest, in-stock, XBOX 360 product pages aren't ranking and why this stale, out-of-stock, XBOX 360 product page still is. We are in obvious need of a better process for retiring old, irrelevant (product) content and eliminating duplicate content, but the question remains, how exactly is Google choosing to rank this one versus the others since they are primarily duplicate pages? Has Google simply determined this one to be the original? What would be the best practice approach to solving a problem like this from an SEO standpoint – 301 redirect all out of stock pages to in stock pages, remove the irrelevant page? Any thoughts or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Justin
Technical SEO | | JustinGeeks0 -
Question about duplicate content in crawl reports
Okay, this one's a doozie: My crawl report is listing all of these as separate URLs with identical duplicate content issues, even though they are all the home page and the one that is http://www.ccisolutions.com (the preferred URL) has a canonical tag of rel= http://www.ccisolutions.com: http://www.ccisolutions.com http://ccisolutions.com http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher?iafAction=showMain I will add that OSE is recognizing that there is a 301-redirect on http://ccisolutions.com, but the duplicate content report doesn't seem to recognize the redirect. Also, every single one of our 404-error pages (we have set up a custom 404 page) is being identified as having duplicate content. The duplicate content on all of them is identical. Where do I even begin sorting this out? Any suggestions on how/why this is happening? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | danatanseo1 -
I am trying to correct error report of duplicate page content. However I am unable to find in over 100 blogs the page which contains similar content to the page SEOmoz reported as having similar content is my only option to just dlete the blog page?
I am trying to correct duplicate content. However SEOmoz only reports and shows the page of duplicate content. I have 5 years worth of blogs and cannot find the duplicate page. Is my only option to just delete the page to improve my rankings. Brooke
Technical SEO | | wianno1680 -
Masses (5,168 issues found) of Duplicate content.
Hi Mozzers, I have a site that has returned 5,168 issues with duplicate content. Where would you start? I started sorting via High page Authority first the highest being 28 all the way down to 1. I did want to use the rel=canonical tag as the site has many redirects already. The duplicates are caused by various category and cross category pages and search results such as ....page/1?show=2&sort=rand. I was thinking of going down the lines of a URL rewrite and changing the search anyway. Is it work redirecting everything in terms of results versus the effort of changing all the 5,168 issues? Thanks sm
Technical SEO | | Metropolis0 -
Help With Joomla Duplicate Content
Need another set of eyes on my site from someone with Joomla experience. I'm running Joomla 2.5 (latest version) and SEOmoz is giving my duplicate content errors on a lot of my pages. I checked my sitemap, I checked my menus, and I checked my links, and I can't figure out how SEOmoz is finding the alternate paths to my content. Home page is: http://www.vipfishingcharters.com/ There's only one menu at the top. Take the first link "Dania Beach" under fishing charters for example. This generates the SEF url: http://www.vipfishingcharters.com/fishing-charters/broward-county/dania-beach-fishing-charters-and-fishing-boats.html Somehow SEOmoz (and presumably all other robots) are finding duplicate content at: http://www.vipfishingcharters.com/broward-county/dania-beach-fishing-charters-and-fishing-boats.html SEOmoz says the referrer is the homepage/root. The first URL is constructed using the menu aliases. The second one is constructed using the Joomla category and article alias. Where is it getting this and how can I stop it? <colgroup><col width="601"></colgroup>
Technical SEO | | NoahC0 -
Forget Duplicate Content, What to do With Very Similar Content?
All, I operate a Wordpress blog site that focuses on one specific area of the law. Our contributors are attorneys from across the country who write about our niche topic. I've done away with syndicated posts, but we still have numerous articles addressing many of the same issues/topics. In some cases 15 posts might address the same issue. The content isn't duplicate but it is very similar, outlining the same rules of law etc. I've had an SEO I trust tell me I should 301 some of the similar posts to one authoritative post on the subject. Is this a good idea? Would I be better served implementing canonical tags pointing to the "best of breed" on each subject? Or would I be better off being grateful that I receive original content on my niche topic and not doing anything? Would really appreciate some feedback. John
Technical SEO | | JSOC0 -
URL Duplicate Content Issues (Website Transition)
Hey guys, I just transitioned my website and I have a question. I have built up all the link juice around my old url styles. To give you some clarity: My old CMS rendered links like this: www.example.com/sweatbands My new CMS renders links like this: www.example.com/sweatbands/ My new CMS's auto-sitemap also generates them with the slash on the end. Also throughout the website the CMS links to them with the slash at the end and i link to them without the slash (because it's what i am used to). I have the canonical without the slash. Should I just 301 to the version with the slash before google crawls again? I'm worried that i'll lose all the trust and ranking i built up to the one without the slash. I rank very high for certain keywords and some pages house a large portion of our traffic. What a mess! Help! 🙂
Technical SEO | | Hyrule0