Why aren't canonical tags reducing duplicate page title/content?
-
We have canonical tags set up for a feature page on one of our sites. This site has an image gallery controlled by javascript. To aid the user experience the image can also be specified by a URL parameter (the javascript also uses this URL to fetch the images). The SEOMoz report complains that the links to these images have duplicate page titles and content.
To try and combat this we set canonical tags to point only to the original page, without the slideshow parameter. e.g.
http://www.example.com/feature-page/
http://www.example.com/feature-page/?slideshow=1 -> canonical tag set to http://www.example.com/feature-page/
http://www.example.com/feature-page/?slideshow=2 -> canonical tag set to http://www.example.com/feature-page/
The latest SEOMoz report has come back and the errors still exist.
What can we do to remove these error messages?
Thanks
-
Hi Mark,
I have evaluated the crawl report. The canonical tag for your images is properly set. There are numerous issues the crawl report presents related to your site.
1. Your home page is duplicated. The URL with and without a trailing slash both are accessible.
2. Many pages are missing canonical tags.
3. You have a 302 redirect from your /how-to-find-us page to the same page with a trailing slash.
4. Most of your pages end without any tech extension, but some end in .html. I would suggest being consistent throughout your site.
5. You have some long title tags and pages with missing meta descriptions.
More specific to the images which are causing the issue, the system you have in place is a bit odd. Most sites which present various images for the same page have a means to do such without each image generating a new url for the same page. I would suggest investigating a different image viewer.
Good luck.
| |
| |
| |
-
I have submitted a new crawl report request for the updated URL.
-
Ryan,
Forgive me, I gave you the wrong URL. the original question related to www.earlscroftfarm.co.uk and not the doorway site.
Thank you for your time.
Mark
-
I have submitted the site for a SEOmoz crawl report so I can view the issue. The crawl should be completed within a day. I'll share the findings with you upon receipt of the report.
While looking at your site I noticed it is very clearly a doorway site. A search engine would likely determine the sole purpose of this site is to redirect traffic to earlscroftfarm.co.uk. It is highly likely Google has devalued all of the site's links.
Why? The sites are clearly operated by the same company, they are hosted on the same server, and the links are about as blatantly obvious as possible.The IPs of each site are different which could be interpreted as you intentionally trying to set up a deceptive link network.
The idea behind links to another sites being used to increase PR stems from the idea the links are earned from independent sources. Linking to your own site does not contribute to that valuation. If you feel this content is helpful, I would recommend merging it into your main site.
-
Thank you. Here's the site link. Self Catering Boston
-
Thanks, we'll wait for the next crawl.
I made the changes on Friday and the scan is dated as Sunday so I'll let it try again before I report a problem.
Thanks for your help.
-
Hi Mark,
If you added the canonical tags very recently, say the last 7-10 days, it's possible the latest crawl started before those tags were in place. (the dates in the Web App are usually the date the crawl finished processing the data, so it can be a bit confusing to follow)
As Ryan said, sounds like you did the right things setting the canonicals. If the problem persists after your next crawl, please contact the help team.
-
Hi Mark,
It sounds like you have taken the correct steps. The most likely answer to your problem is either the canonical tag was not properly written or there are some pages which are missing the tag.
A less likely possibility is a problem with the crawl tool. In that case you can reach out to help@seomoz.org for assistance.
Can you share your site URL so we can take a better look?
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 am using moz pro but ı can't use keyword explorer
hi am buying moz pro but can't please help me. ı want scan this web site https://baliktasarim.com/
Moz Pro | | nurmasumi20020 -
Duplicate content issues with file download links (diff. versions of a downloadable application)
I'm a little unsure how canonicalisation works with this case. 🙂 We have very regular updates to the application which is available as a download on our site. Obviously, with every update the version number of the file being downloaded changes; and along with it, the URL parameter included when people click the 'Download' button on our site. e.g. mysite.com/download/download.php?f=myapp.1.0.1.exe mysite.com/download/download.php?f=myapp.1.0.2.exe mysite.com/download/download.php?f=myapp.1.0.3.exe, etc In the Moz Site Crawl report all of these links are registering as Duplicate Content. There's no content per se on these pages, all they do is trigger a download of the specified file from our servers. Two questions: Are these links actually hurting our ranking/authority/etc? Would adding a canonical tag to the head of mysite.com/download/download.php solve the crawl issues? Would this catch all of the download.php URLs? i.e. Thanks! Jon
Moz Pro | | jonmc
(not super up on php, btw. So if I'm saying something completely bogus here...be kind 😉 )0 -
Duplicate content - Product Categories
Dears, I've use "Site Crawl" tool to find any SEO warnings, and I found 991 duplicated content. The problem is that the pages are not duplicated its all products category pages, please check this exmaple: This page: https://www.jobedu.com/en/shop/category/prints/Postcards/na/all-colors/all-size and this page: https://www.jobedu.com/en/shop/category/Accessories/keychain/na/all-colors/all-size It said its duplicated, and it's 991 pages! How to fix this this? what I can do?
Moz Pro | | jobedu0 -
How to Avoid Duplicate Page Content errors when using Wordpress Categories & Tags?
I get a lot of duplicate page errors on my crawl diagnostics reports from 'categories' and 'tags' on my wordpress sites. The post is 1x link and then the content is 'duplicated' on the 'category' or 'tag' that is added to the page. Should I exclude the tags and categories from my sitemap or are these issues not that important? Thanks for your help Stacey
Moz Pro | | skehoe1 -
Duplicate titles reported with canonical
Hi Mozzers, In the reports it is saying that I have some duplicate content and titles even though there is a canonical tag on them, is anyone else getting this?
Moz Pro | | KarlBantleman0 -
Crawled pages are missing and showing just 1 page crawled
One of my campaign has got around 8500 pages crawled(seomoz) and reports are shown, but suddenly it is showing 1 page crawled. Why it is happened like this? How can i get back the previous reports?
Moz Pro | | Sulekha0 -
Links don't add up
Sorry if this is obvious, but I'm new to seomoz. I've run an analysis for one of my pages and it's showing 624 total links - 118 internal and 6 external. Why doesn't the sum of the internal and external links equal the total links?
Moz Pro | | landmark10 -
I have a Rel Canonical "notice" in my Crawl Diagnostics report. I'm presuming that means that the spider has detected a rel canonical tag and it is working as opposed to warning about an issue, is this correct?
I know this seems like a really dumb question but the site I'm working on is a BigCommerce one and I've been concerned about canonicalisation issues prior to receiving this report (I'm a SEOmoz pro newbie also!) and I just want to be clear I am reading this notice correctly. I presume this means that the site crawl has detected the rel canonical tag on these pages and it is working correctly. Is this correct?? Any input is much appreciated. Thanks
Moz Pro | | seanpearse0