Duplicate content in Shopify - subsequent pages in collections
-
Hello everyone!
I hope an expert in this community can help me verify the canonical codes I'll add to our store is correct.
Currently, in our Shopify store, the subsequent pages in the collections are not indexed by Google, however the canonical URL on these pages aren't pointing to the main collection page (page 1), e.g. The canonical URL of page 2, page 3 etc are used as canonical URLs instead of the first page of the collections.
I have the canonical codes attached below, it would be much appreciated if an expert can urgently verify these codes are good to use and will solve the above issues? Thanks so much for your kind help in advance!!
-----------------CODES BELOW---------------
<title><br /> {{ page_title }}{% if current_tags %} – tagged "{{ current_tags | join: ', ' }}"{% endif %}{% if current_page != 1 %} – Page {{ current_page }}{% endif %}{% unless page_title contains shop.name %} – {{ shop.name }}{% endunless %}<br /></title>
{% if page_description %}{% endif %}
{% if current_page != 1 %}
{% else %}
{% endif %}
{% if template == 'collection' %}{% if collection %}
{% if current_page == 1 %}{% endif %}
{% if template == 'product' %}{% if product %}{% endif %}
{% if template == 'collection' %}{% if collection %}{% endif %}
-
The advice is no longer current. If you want to see what Google used to say about rel=next/prev, you can read that on this archived URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20190217083902/https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en
As you say Google are no longer using rel=prev/next as an indexation signal. Don't take that to mean that, Google are now suddenly blind to paginated content. It probably just means that their base-crawler is now advanced enough, not to require in-code prompting
I still don't think that de-indexing all your paginated content with canonical tags is a good idea. What if, for some reason, the paginated version of a parent URL is more useful to end-users? Should you disallow Google from ranking that content appropriately, by using canonical tags (remember: a page that uses a canonical tag cites itself as non-canonical, making it unlikely that it could be indexed)
Google may not find the parent URL as useful as the paginated variant which they might otherwise rank, so using canonical tags in this way could potentially reduce your number of rankings or ranking URLs. The effect is likely to be very slight, but personally I would not recommend de-indexation of paginated content via canonical tags (unless you are using some really weird architecture that you don't believe Google would recognise as pagination). The parameter based syntax of "?p=" or "&p=" is widely adopted, Google should be smart enough to think around this
If Search Console starts warning you of content duplication, maybe consider canonical deployment. Until such a time, it's not really worth it
-
Hi, I came across this page because I have the same question about page 2 of collection pages. In my case, the URL for page 2 of a collection would be site.com/collection?p=2, with the canonical tag for the page also pointing to site.com/collection?p=2.
I am concerned that this will create duplicate content, because the collection description is repeated on each page of the collection.
Is your advice still current? The link in your response no longer exists, and according to webmasters.googleblog.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html, Rel=prev/next is not an indexing signal anymore.
Thanks!
-
Your code looks as if you have more than one canonical tag deployed on a single web-page, so that would be a bad deployment. One page can only have one canonical parent and that's that
It seems that you are attempting to use canonical tags to address pagination (paginated content, e.g: site.com/collection/page-2/ or site.com/collection?p=2) on your collection URLs, is that right?
Don't use canonical tags to address pagination. A paginated URL is canonical for the specified 'page' of content, which may (under some rare circumstances) be more useful to search users. Do not de-index your paginated content by making those paginated URLs canonical elsewhere
Instead, use Google's rel=prev/next guidance as outlined here.
If you de-index paginated URLs by using canonical tags, the rankings that some of those paginated URLs (due to their unique comments or tabbed content) may have gained, will not usually be given to the canonical parent. Although you will have more control over the user-journey, you will lose out on some long-tail traffic
Instead use rel=prev/next which will tell Google that the content is a subsequent 'page' of another document. This will make the paginated URLs 'less' likely to rank, but will allow them to rank for very specific search queries. Then you have the best of both worlds
Some people think that, prev/next and canonical are actually compatible. I am a little uneasy with regards to that, but if you do decide to utilise canonical tags to force one page to rank more often - don't deploy them without rel-prev/next
Hope that helps!
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
-
Identifying Duplicate Content
Hi looking for tools (beside Copyscape or Grammarly) which can scan a list of URLs (e.g. 100 pages) and find duplicate content quite quickly. Specifically, small batches of duplicate content, see attached image as an example. Does anyone have any suggestions? Cheers. 5v591k.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright0 -
Wondering if creating 256 new pages would cause duplicate content issues
I just completed a long post that reviews 16 landing page tools. I want to add 256 new pages that compare each tool against each other. For example: Leadpages vs. Instapage Leadpages vs. Unbounce Instapage vs. Unbounce, etc Each page will have one product's information on the left and the other on the right. So each page will be a unique combination BUT the same product information will be found on several other pages (its other comparisons vs the other 15 tools). This is because the Leadpages comparison information (a table) will be the same no matter which tool it is being compared against. If my math is correct, this will create 256 new pages - one for each combination of the 16 tools against each other! My site now is new and only has 6 posts/pages if that matters. Want to make sure I don't create a problem early on...Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | martechwiz0 -
Duplicated Meta Descriptions on Dynamic Paginated Pages
If the title didn't put you off please read on! 🙂 According to our latest Moz Crawl Report we have circa 700 instances of duplicate Meta Description on pages that are both dynamically created and also paginated, however, I believe that number to be greater! We are unable to manual make changes to these pages (because they are dynamic) and so we need ask our web devs to create a change in how the Meta is created... If I am not making myself clear (and there is a good chance that I'm not!) then here is an example of what I mean; http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/cruise-deals/silversea-cruise-deals/ There are 92 pages of cruise deals for this particular operator with the results of each page having the option to sort by 4 categories; Recommended Cruise Price Sail Date Best Value 4 x 92 = 368 instances just for this one operator! The current Meta Desc is; A selection of the best Silversea cruise deals taking in over 800 destinations across all 7 continents. ...which isn't great I know! The problem is how to make each page (in each category) unique If any of you have incurred anything similar and have any kind of solution or recommendation then please respond - I would be most grateful! Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomKing0 -
Site been plagiarised - duplicate content
Hi, I look after two websites, one sells commercial mortgages the other sells residential mortgages. We recently redesigned both sites, and one was moved to a new domain name as we rebranded it from being a trading style of the other brand to being a brand in its own right. I have recently discovered that one of my most important pages on the residential mortgages site is not in Google's index. I did a bit of poking around with Copyscape and found another broker has copied our page almost word-for-word. I then used copyscape to find all the other instances of plagiarism on the other broker's site and there are a few! It now looks like they have copied pages from our commercial mortgages site as well. I think the reason our page has been removed from the index is that we relaunced both these sites with new navigation and consequently new urls. Can anyone back me up on this theory? I am 100% sure that our page is the original version because we write everything in-house and I check it with copyscape before it gets published, Also the fact that this other broker has copied from several different sites corroborates this view. Our legal team has written two letters (not sent yet) - one to the broker and the other to the broker's web designer. These letters ask the recipient to remove the copied content within 14 days. If they do remove our content from our site, how do I get Google to reindex our pages, given that Google thinks OUR pages are the copied ones and not the other way around? Does anyone have any experience with this? Or, will it just happen automatically? I have no experience of this scenario! In the past, where I've found duplicate content like this, I've just rewritten the page, and chalked it up to experience but I don't really want to in this case because, frankly, the copy on these pages is really good! And, I don't think it's fair that someone else could potentially be getting customers that were persuaded by OUR copy. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Amelia
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommT0 -
Should I "NoIndex" Pages with Almost no Unique Content
I have a real estate site with MLS data (real estate listings shared across the Internet by Realtors, which means data exist across the Internet already). Important pages are the "MLS result pages" - the pages showing thumbnail pictures of all properties for sale in a given region or neighborhood. 1 MLS result page may be for a region and another for a neighborhood within the region:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi5
example.com/region-name and example.com/region-name/neighborhood-name
So all data on the neighborhood page will be 100% data from the region URL. Question: would it make sense to "NoIndex" such neighborhood page, since it would reduce nr of non-unique pages on my site and also reduce amount of data which could be seen as duplicate data? Will my region page have a good chance of ranking better if I "NoIndex" the neighborhood page? OR, is Google so advanced they know Realtors share MLS data and worst case simple give such pages very low value, but will NOT impact ranking of other pages on a website? I am aware I can work on making these MLS result pages more unique etc, but that isn't what my above question is about. thank you.0 -
How to Best Establish Ownership when Content is Duplicated?
A client (Website A) has allowed one of their franchisees to use some of the content from their site on the franchisee site (Website B). This franchisee lifted the content word for word, so - my question is how to best establish that Website A is the original author? Since there is a business relationship between the two sites, I'm thinking of requiring Website B to add a rel=canonical tag to each page using the duplicated content and referencing the original URL on site A. Will that work, or is there a better solution? This content is primarily informational product content (not blog posts or articles), so I'm thinking rel=author may not be appropriate.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Allie_Williams0 -
Duplicate content for swatches
My site is showing a lot of duplicate content on SEOmoz. I have discovered it is because the site has a lot of swatches (colors for laminate) within iframes. Those iframes have all the same content except for the actual swatch image and the title of the swatch. For example, these are two of the links that are showing up with duplicate content: http://www.formica.com/en/home/dna.aspx?color=3691&std=1&prl=PRL_LAMINATE&mc=0&sp=0&ots=&fns=&grs= http://www.formica.com/en/home/dna.aspx?color=204&std=1&prl=PRL_LAMINATE&mc=0&sp=0&ots=&fns=&grs= I do want each individual swatch to show up in search results and they currently are if you search for the exact swatch name. Is the fact that they all have duplicate content affecting my individual rankings and my domain authority? What can I do about it? I can't really afford to put unique content on each swatch page so is there another way to get around it? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlightAnalytics0 -
Removing Duplicate Page Content
Since joining SEOMOZ four weeks ago I've been busy tweaking our site, a magento eCommerce store, and have successfully removed a significant portion of the errors. Now I need to remove/hide duplicate pages from the search engines and I'm wondering what is the best way to attack this? Can I solve this in one central location, or do I need to do something in the Google & Bing webmaster tools? Here is a list of duplicate content http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?dir=asc&mode=grid&order=name http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?dir=asc&mode=list&order=name
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SteveMaguire
http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?dir=asc&order=name http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?dir=desc&mode=grid&order=name http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?dir=desc&mode=list&order=name http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?dir=desc&order=name http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?mode=grid http://www.unitedbmwonline.com/?mode=list Thanks in advance, Steve0