Roger keeps telling me my canonical pages are duplicates
-
I've got a site that's brand spanking new that I'm trying to get the error count down to zero on, and I'm basically there except for this odd problem. Roger got into the site like a naughty puppy a bit too early, before I'd put the canonical tags in, so there were a couple thousand 'duplicate content' errors. I put canonicals in (programmatically, so they appear on every page) and waited a week and sure enough 99% of them went away.
However, there's about 50 that are still lingering, and I'm not sure why they're being detected as such. It's an ecommerce site, and the duplicates are being detected on the product page, but why these 50? (there's hundreds of other products that aren't being detected). The URLs that are 'duplicates' look like this according to the crawl report:
http://www.site.com/Product-1.aspx
http://www.site.com/product-1.aspx
And so on. Canonicals are in place, and have been for weeks, and as I said there's hundreds of other pages just like this not having this problem, so I'm finding it odd that these ones won't go away.
All I can think of is that Roger is somehow caching stuff from previous crawls? According to the crawl report these duplicates were discovered '1 day ago' but that simply doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of messing up one or two pages on my part either; we made this site to be dynamically generated, and all of the SEO stuff (canonical, etc.) is applied to every single page regardless of what's on it.
If anyone can give some insight I'd appreciate it!
-
ThompsonPaul -
Thanks for that info, it pretty much nails exactly what I had discovered independently. This is an IIS7/Win2k8R2 install so luckily the rewriting is a bit easier than in previous iterations. The whole platform is hand coded by us (after the 10th ecommerce site or so you can generally do them in your sleep) so I don't have to worry about CMS implementation and the like, and luckily we already knew that about the spaces so they simply aren't allowed in the filenames. I'm in the middle of making a regex right now that is going to down-case anything in an href="" or src="" tag that will hopefully handle everything on the site side user-created or not. Will consider what to do in regards to external links a bit down the road I think.
-
Valery, you're definitely going to want to normalize your URLs to lowercase. This is a quirk of IIS that it actually respects case in URLs and will consider different case URLs as different pages.
In addition to the search engine problems it creates, it's also a major problem for usabilty - yours and your users. For example, a user who is trying to type in a direct URL can get a 404 error depending on what case they use.
More importantly, your Google Analytics will report on each of those version as separate pages, unless you write a normalizing filter into your GA profiles. Better to do that normalization for the actual site, not just your analytics
While rel=canonical can resolve a number of issues, I've always found it vastly better to correct the actual problem at its root, rather than rely on canonicalization as a catch-all. Anecdotally, I've found correcting issues like this with rewrites seems to allow affected pages to rank better than when just corrected with canonicalization. WIsh I could find time to do an actual case-study on that
Managing rewrites on IIS servers will require a plugin like asapi-rewrite as IIS doesn't handle it natively.
P.S. IIS will also allow and respect spaces in URLs. Users in Internet Explorer will see them as normal with spaces but browsers like Firefox will insert the html entity for a space (%20) into each necessary spot in the URL. This is again a mess for usability, so much better to force rewrite of all URLs to replace spaces with dashes when creating new pages. Many CMSs have plugins for this or you can also use sitewide rewrites to do it after the fact.
-
I think I get your point; the canonical is pointing to where the juice should go, but the URLs are still functionally different things. I'm guessing some sort of URL rewrite is in order, and to standardize how I do in-text links on the site (with user-editable content this part could be a pain).
-
Hey Valery,
I see those on closer inspection. I know it looks weird, but that's accurate. Your server must be UNIX or Linux so they will actually treat case as a different word.
For example: banana.com/pancakes.html would be treated differently than banana.com/PanCakes.html.
So if you have any pages generated dynamically or otherwise that differ only in case, then they will be tagged as duplicate.
In your CSV file you can see the duplicates being caused by case. I'd also be happy to help provide a few specific examples but would want to generate a ticket for you so we don't divulge any private information.
Cheers,
Joel.
-
Joel -
Thanks a lot for looking into that. The pages are very similar, so I'm not surprised they're being duplicate triggered; but what does surprise me is that they are apparently being considered duplicate to a canonical version of themselves? When I click on the duplicate list I'm expecting to see:
Product1.aspx
Product1-Blue.aspx
Product1-Red.aspx
But instead I'm seeing:
Product1.aspx
product1.aspx
product1.ASPX
And so on. The first scenario to me implies that the 3 pages are duplicate to each other, whereas the second is saying that there's either a canonical problem or I literally have different-case versions of those files.
-
Hi Valery,
I took a peek at your campaign and it looks like those few remaining duplicate pages are in fact different, but very minor differences. Basically there's pages for different sizes of things.
While being different, they vary in such minute ways that Roger see's them as duplicates.
I Hope that answers the question.
Thanks,
Joel.
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
-
Duplicate Pages
Hello, we have an issue which I'm hoping someone can help with. Our Moz system is saying that this page http://www.indigolittle.com/fees/ Is a duplicate page. We use this page purely for mobiles and we have added code to say This has been on for over a month now however Moz is still picking the page us as a High Priority Issue.
Moz Pro | | popcreativeltd0 -
Google+ Local Business Page not appearing
I have a local verified google + listing and recently just went to update it nicely. even though it has been around for months, however Google just can't seem to index it, does anybody know the reason why? I have tried " hard-searching" for it and it is not even indexed! However if i find hard enough, it will appear in google maps, and also my domain has been around for months, if not a year however under Moz Open Site explorer it indicates it is a super new domain and even alexa is not recognizing any data even though it has traffic. The only thing i have done is i have shifted servers two months ago. Does that translate to a new site? I hope not...
Moz Pro | | partyrocks0 -
Problems with duplicate contents...
Hi folks, how's going? I started using Seo Moz and from the first crawling appears that I have 11 pages with duplicate contents... but this is not true, are different pages with different url, contents, tags... any idea to solve he problem? Alessandro, MusicaNueva.es
Moz Pro | | musicanueva0 -
Duplicate page titles in SEOMoz
My on page reports are showing a good number of duplicate title tags, but they are all because of a url tracking parameter that tells us which link the visitor clicked on. For example, http://www.example.com/example-product.htm?ref=navside and http://www.example.com/example-product.htm are the same page, but are treated as to different urls in SEOMoz. This is creating "fake" number of duplicate page titles in my reports. This has not been a problem with Google, but SEOMoz is treating it like this and it's confusing my data. Is there a way to specify this as a url parameter in the Moz software? Or does anybody have another suggestion? Should I specify this in GWT and BWT?
Moz Pro | | InetAll0 -
How to delete/redirect duplicate content
Hello, Our site thewealthymind(dot)com has a lot of duplicate content. How do you clear up duplicate content when there's a lot of it. The owners redid the site several times and didn't update the URLs. Thank you.
Moz Pro | | BobGW0 -
Canonical URLs for Search Parameters
Hi Guys Our seomoz campaign report is returning a lot or Rel Canonical issues similar to this for each page. The non / version redirects to the / version but how do I get the ones with search parameters ie '?datefrom&nights' to redirect. http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78
Moz Pro | | JohnTulley
http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78/
http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78/?datefrom&nights
http://www.lamangaclubresort.co.uk/accommodations/las-brisas-78/?datefrom=&nights= Any help would be welcome, thanks0 -
Does the page authority data also considers the on page factors like the presence of keyword in the title,meta text, and keyword frequency ??
The moz difficulty score considers four factors for the top websites. are the on page factors included in the page authority data ?
Moz Pro | | iQuanti0 -
On Page missing keywords
I setup my keywords on SEOMoz properly but the On Page result just shows me 2 keywords instead of the 7 that I set for my campaign. I was expecting the application to score the other keywords on wednesday but it did not add the missing keywords. Is this a bug?
Moz Pro | | netbuilder0