Update in Moz spider/tools?? Flagging duplicate content / ignoring canonical
-
Hi all,
Has there been an update in the SEOmoz crawling software?
We now have thousands of dupe content/page title warnings for paginated product page URLs that have correctly formatted canonicals.
e.g.
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
... has following pages with identical content that have been flagged:
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4
..plus 4 more URL's.
But they all have canonical set. There's even a notice at the bottom of report that tells us there's a canonical set to http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
What gives, SEOmoz ??
Thanks
Michael
-
Hey Lawrence,
Campaigns have a 95% tolerance for duplicate content. This includes all the source code on the page and not just the viewable text. So if a URL is at least 95% similar in code and content to another URL, this warning will appear.
You can run your own tests using this tool: http://www.webconfs.com/similar-page-checker.php
We don't know what standard Google uses, but it's safe to say they are a bit more sophisticated than us - so you might be okay in this regard as long as you have a couple hundred words of unique text and some unique coding per page. Google won't say how much duplicate content is too much, so we like to be better safe than sorry.
I hope this help. Let me know if you need further assistance.
-Chiaryn
-
Hi Chiaryn,
Thanks for reply and explanation. The different colour-specific pages e.g. Tweed Green and Olive Green have some different content but it's nothing like enough in cases of two greens, two blues etc. as we simplify colour names for search so when there is an Olive and a Tweed Green they both end up having 'Green' as variable in page title, H1 etc. Will fix this.
Do you think the reviews at the bottom of the pages will also trigger dupe content warning? i.e. even if we make all other on-page elements unique for each colour url? (page title, H1, H2, prod description etc) The reviews are quite extensive and are the same on all the separate colour specific product page versions of each style and was thinking today whether we should remove them from these colour product pages (OR perhaps let the colour product pages have their OWN reviews)
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
Thanks again
-
Oh, brilliant (re: "See more" aspect) Thanks for the info. Will let you how we tackle this and the repercussions (!) and look forward to hearing how you get on also!
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for writing in. I already emailed you in response to the ticket you sent in to the Help Desk, but I will copy my answer here for you review.
--
I looked into your campaign and it seems that this is happening because of where your canonical tags are pointing. These pages are considered duplicates because their canonical tags point to different URLs. For example, http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx is considered a duplicate of http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4 because the canonical tag for the first page is http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx while the canonical for the second URL ishttp://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx, with one URL showing tweed-green and the other showing olive-green.
Since the canonical tags point to different URLs it is assumed that http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx and http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx are likely to be duplicates themselves.
Here is how our system interprets duplicate content vs. rel canonical:
Assuming A, B, C, and D are all duplicates,
If A references B as the canonical, then they are not considered duplicates
If A and B both reference C as canonical, A and B are not considered duplicates of each other
If A references C as a canonical, A and B are considered duplicated
If A references C as canonical, B references D, then A and B are considered duplicates
The examples you've provided actually fall into the fourth example I've listed above.I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
--
-Chiaryn
-
We use the "See more" script on our sites, and from what I understand, at least from other Mozzers, this is an okay practice. http://www.seomoz.org/q/using-more-info-javascript-toggledisplay-tag-for-more-info-text
We also use the rel="prev" and rel="next" to some success, but I can't comment on how that's functioning canonical-wise, because IT WAS DROPPED from our latest redesign and is going to be added to our client's website in the latest release. Oye.
I'd love to hear how this works out for you. There are some really great Mozzers on here with loads of experience about canonical tags and duplicate page issues. Can't wait to see what they have to contribute.
-
Hi there,
Thanks for your response.
It's not product page A being seen as a duplicate of product page B etc, but several versions of product A seen as duplicate due to pagination, stemming from reviews for the products that span several pages, so making the rest of the content, titles etc different other than the (crawlable) reviews isn't really an option.
Will look more into "noindex, follow" tags in pagination.
We could have a View All page for indexing showing all reviews (with lots of scrolling!) , with the paginated versions canonicalized to that version (could still serve the paginated version of product page from site navigation perhaps with "noindex, follow" meta tag) Text doesn’t take long to load and this approach would consolidate the review content.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html
Other option is to use rel=”prev” and rel=”next” implementation which shows Google the relationship between the pages (not sure if it will still be flagged as dupe content in SEOmoz though! Depends if they follow the tag). This way individual pages might get indexed (not sure if that's a good thing?!) perhaps if there's something in a review from (say) page 5 of the product reviews.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
Ideally I'd like to implement all reviews on one page and hide them with a facebook-style 'See more' function. Not sure if that counts as hiding content? Will look into this.
-
Hi Michael,
Not sure if this helps you out at all, but I found this about the canonicals and SEOMoz crawl report in a previous Q http://mz.cm/11erRj6:
As far as the SEOmoz crawl reports go, not that setting a canonical won't stop these pages being reported as duplicate content.
From the help:
"Keep in mind that that canonicals will stop the pages from ranking against each other, but they will still show up as duplicate content from a UI perspective, so we will still count them as duplicate."
I have the same issues on my accounts. I'm focusing on making the pages content as unique as possible, or using the "noindex, follow" meta tags to see if that makes a difference.
I know you may have a lot of pages on your website, but perhaps writing short descriptions on your products would help. It might be worthwhile, but completely understandable that it may be a huge undertaking if you have hundreds or thousands of pages.
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
-
Is The Number of Duplicate Pages reduced after adding canonical ref to the dupe versions ?
Hi Is the number of duplicate pages reported in a dupe page content error report reduced on subsequent crawls, if you have resolved the dupe content problem via adding the canonical tag to duplicate versions (referring the original page). Like it would if you were solving the problem via a 301 redirect (i think/presume) ? Cheers Dan
Moz Pro | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Moz WordPress Plugin?
WordPress is currently 18% of the Internet. Given its huge footprint, wouldn't it make sense for Moz to develop a WP plugin that can not only report site metrics, but help fix and optimize site structure directly from within the site? Just curious - I can't be the only one who wonders if I'm implementing Moz findings/recommendations correctly given the myriad of WP SEO plugins, authors, implementations.
Moz Pro | | twelvetwo.net4 -
Annotations in Moz tools?
Beginner question, I know, but is there a way to add an annotation or event to the Moz tools, as I can in Google Analytics? I'd like to mark when a change was made. Thanks.
Moz Pro | | KelloggMoz0 -
Problem after opensiteexplorer update
i have problem every time put external link in linkdetective.com its always give me no 17.500 no profile back link but when i post old list from open site explorer that list i got it before update it work and give me result but from like 2 week every list i generate from open site explorer it always give me the same result 17.500 no back link profile any help ???
Moz Pro | | osama_evearabia.com0 -
Rel Canonical Question
Hi all. I think I'm a bit confused. When I check my crawl diagnostics its listing lots of warnings under the heading rel-canonical. I am not sure why, since virtually all my pages have the link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" tag. I use it because there are a lot of possible extensions that can appear on the pages as it is an eCommerce site. Why would seomoz list this as a warning? Thanks Ken
Moz Pro | | CandymanKen0 -
Error on duplicated content, but when checking shouldn't been possible
Dear all, Every week I look at the different crawl reports for our website, since the start of my SeoMoz membership the Errors for duplicated content and duplicated Title is rising. But if I take out the .csv file and look in more detail, and select a pages which is marked as duplicated content, a canonical is actually existing on this page. So it shouldn't be an warning, I have no idea what the issue could be. For example pagesare marked as duplicated content, <colgroup><col width="966"></colgroup>
Moz Pro | | Letty
| http://www.zylom.com/es/descargar-juegos/3-en-raya/?sortby=2 |
| http://www.zylom.com/es/descargar-juegos/3-en-raya/?startnumber=60&sortby=2 |
| http://www.zylom.com/es/descargar-juegos/3-en-raya/?startnumber=80&sortby=2 | the parameters after '?' (question mark) are necessary for our internal system. To overcome duplicated content we coded that a canonical tag onis placed on every page with parameters and the main page is http://www.zylom.com/es/descargar-juegos/3-en-raya/ but it doesn't seem to work, because my error warnings are still rising. Please advice me Kind regards, Ms Letty van Eembergen0 -
Seomoz Spider/Bot Details
Hi All Our website identifies a list of search engine spiders so that it does not show them the session ID's when they come to crawl, preventing the search engines thinking there is duplicate content all over the place. The Seomoz has bought a over 20k crawl errors on the dashboard due to session ID's. Could someone please give the details for the Seomoz bot so that we can add it to the list on the website so when it does come to crawl it won't show it session ID's and give all these crawl errors. Thanks
Moz Pro | | blagger1