SEOmoz suddenly reporting duplicate content with no changes???
-
I am told the crawler has been updated and wanted to know if anyone else is seeing the same thing I am.
SEOmoz reports show many months of no duplicate content problems. As of last week though, I get a little over a thousand pages reported as dupe content errors.
Checking these pages I find there is similar content (hasn't changed) with keywords that are definitely different. Many of these pages rank well in Google, but SEOmoz is calling them out as duplicate content. Is SEOmoz attempting to closely imitate Google's perspective in this matter and therefore telling me that I need to seriously change the similar content?
Anyone else seeing something like this?
-
Hi
We see the extreme raise in the duplicate content of our site too. If the sensitivity is adapted, will these graphs come down again?
What is your opinion on how Google sees a webshop with lot's of products and filter options? Our site www.dmlights.com/massive for example can have a lot of filtering but we try to counter this in Webmaster Tools with the URL parameters.
Do you suggest to adapt this for good seo?
Wondering about your opinions. Thanks.
-
Hey Scott,
Again, we're sorry about the odd jump in duplicate content errors!
We just launched a new crawler and it is being extremely sensitive to duplicate content. As of now we are picking up duplicate pages on your domain via:
https clones of URLs
Some pages have a “/” trailing after the URL and some don’t
We are also ignoring some rel=canonical directives
This is an issue that other users are seeing with their crawls. Our engineers have made some changes to the crawler to scale back the sensitivity to these issues on the crawler and you should be seeing the changes within a week or two.
We're really sorry for the confusion.
Best of Luck,
Chiaryn
-
Two good suggestions so far, and both I had checked. Thanks KJ Rogers and Ryan Kent.
This is starting to look like it boils down to how much the new SEOmoz crawler sees content in the same way that Google does.
We did not make any site-wide changes and the URLs identified as duplicate in the report are valid URLs that actually hold similar content (keywords and so forth were changed for each version of a slightly different product through an Excel Concatenate construct to build the content). We have actually seen these pages climb in rank over the months since the content was added.
So, like I said, the sudden identification of these as duplicate by the moz crawler is suspicious to me. Not sure it sees things the way Google does.
-
Without examining your site and the pages involved it is not possible for me to share feedback.
Is it possible you made any recent site wide changes? Changes to your header, navigation, footer or sidebar could have pushed you passed a certain threshhold of duplicate content which triggered a flag.
-
I got the same thing last week. I later found out that mine, using dynamic content on the same page, had speical characters in the url which was taking crawlers to an error page. The error page was showing a list of pages with the url's capitalized. I was able to fix some of them, but it scared the heck out of me.
I had to run a crawl test from SEOMoz to filter out what was going on. Perhaps you have something similar?
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
-
Google creating it own content
I am based in Australia but a US founded search on 'sciatica' shows an awesome answer on the RHS of the SERP https://www.google.com/search?q=sciatica&oq=sciatica&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.3631j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The download on sciatica is a pdf created by google. Firstly is this common in the US? secondly any inputs on where this is heading for rollout would be appreciated. Is google now creating its own content to publish?
Algorithm Updates | | ClaytonJ0 -
Duplicate Content
I was just using a program (copyscpape) to see if the content on a clients website has been copied. I was surprised that the content on the site was displaying 70% duplicated and it's showing the same content on a few sites with different % duplicated (ranging from 35%-80%) I have been informed that the content on the clients site is original and was written by the client. My question is, does Google know or understand that the clients website's content was created as original and that the other sites have copied it word-for-word and placed it on their site? Does he need to re-write the content to make it original? I just want to make sure before I told him to re-write all the content on the site? I'm well aware that duplicate content is bad, but i'm just curious if it's hurting the clients site because they originally created the content. Thanks for your input.
Algorithm Updates | | Kdruckenbrod0 -
50% drop in search, no changes to site over 2 days, no notifications, A rank...
My URL is: http://applianceassistant.com
Algorithm Updates | | applianceassistant
With no changes to my site, I suddenly experienced a huge drop in search queries on Aug1. Your company has still given me an overall rating of A. I just thought you may be able to help or be interested in my case due to it's strange nature. Due to some suggestions on the webmaster forums, I have disavowed all low quality back links to the site, and I am currently working through each page trying to make the key words a little less spammy. Here are some screen shots of the action...
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WgXUf-lvUyg/U-nrWNgspPI/AAAAAAAAAEI/imoI190LUns/s1600/Analytics_081214.tiff
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-srmvn288rr0/U-pxlwoycVI/AAAAAAAAAEg/ckmyX_2Sl_Y/s1600/PAGES_AUG.tiff
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DVCYxhkutbQ/U-pxpQVfYfI/AAAAAAAAAEo/MN9PiLFT-zs/s1600/pages_july.tiff This appears to be almost a 50% 2 year set back. Any ideas or suggestions are greatly appreciated0 -
Site titles / descriptions change - Google Algo Change ?
Hello, During the weekend 4 of our sites automatically changed their search titles and descriptions at the same time.
Algorithm Updates | | lordish
They are not picking up the real pages: Title, Description. Our ranks are dropping because of this. can you please tell if it happened to you as well or if you recognize a problem here? sites:
http://www.robinhoodbingo.com
http://www.gossipbingo.com
http://www.moonbingo.com in the attached examples:
for the kws searched - the results show different titles and descriptions. results for these pages:
moon bingo - http://www.moonbingo.com
mobile bingo - http://www.robinhoodbingo.com/skin/mobile.php rhMzURw.png 2tRL5dZ.png0 -
Any PR Lose? Google Made a Update ! Heavy Traffic, Followed SEOmoz Tips - Dropped to PR4 ?
I followed the rules to minimize the links in the page. Getting Same Traffic to my blog and increased only. But my PR5 to PR4 ? why even 404 Error was reduced o 5 or 6 which i updated now ! not accepting any Text Link ads ! too past 6 months also !
Algorithm Updates | | Esaky0 -
Javascript hidden divs, links to anchor content
Hello, I am working on a web project that breaks up its sections by utilizing hidden divs shown via javascript activated through anchor links. http://www.janandtom.com/ First question: Is this SEO suicide? I have confirmed that the content is being indexed by searching for specific text but have been led to believe that hidden div content will be afforded a lower 'importance'. One suggestion has having the text as display:block and then hiding it on page load. Will this make a difference? Second: Is there any way to have Google index the anchored content by the specific anchor text? An example for the second question: If you search google right now for: buyers like to look at floorplans Tom & Jan You will get a link to: http://www.janandtom.com but I would rather it be: [http://www.janandtom.com/#Interactive Floorplans](http://www.janandtom.com/#Interactive Floorplans) Sorry if this is redundant or addressed before. I tried searching the questions but wasn't getting and definitive direction to go and this project is a little unique for me. Also, I'm just getting my feet we into this 'high-end' seo (new member of SEOMoz) so please bear with me. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | MASSProductions0 -
SEO updates and rank changes
We have been updating page titles and meta descriptions for a client (not changing ANY links and the content we are replacing is "fluff," no major keywords or any relevant information) yet in the past few weeks, rankings have plummeted. I used the SEOMoz grader to check and make sure we have the keywords in there, in the right places for the updated page source info, and we're getting A's yet for those same keywords, the website is nowhere to be found. For example for the phrase "organic t shirts," we get an A for this page: http://greenpromotionalitems.com/organic-t-shirts.htm but when searching organic t shirts, no Green Promotional Items... Ideas?
Algorithm Updates | | laidlawseo0 -
Are the latest Ranking Reports counting the new large format site links as positions?
Received my weekly ranking report this morning and noticed a specific keyword that I've been ranking in the 3rd or 4th spot has dropped a significant amount of positions. I tested the results myself and it appears the site links of the manufacturer are being counted as positions? My keyword has me in the 3rd position (although it is much lower on the physical page now because of the new format). I'm really wondering how this will affect organic listings going forward - this new format could be a game changer.
Algorithm Updates | | longbeachjamie2