Duplicate title-tags with pagination and canonical
-
Some time back we implemented the Google recommendation for pagination (the rel="next/prev"). GWMT now reports 17K pages with duplicate title-tags (we have about 1,1m products on our site and about 50m pages indexed in Google)
As an example we have properties listed in various states and the category title would be "Properties for Sale in [state-name]".
A paginated search page or browsing a category (see also http://searchengineland.com/implementing-pagination-attributes-correctly-for-google-114970) would then include the following:
The title for each page is the same - so to avoid the duplicate title-tags issue, I would think one would have the following options:
- Ignore what Google says
- Change the canonical to http://www.site.com/property/state.html (which would then only show the first XX results)
- Append a page number to the title "Properties for Sale in [state-name] | Page XX"
- Have all paginated pages use noindex,follow - this would then result in no category page being indexed
Would you have the canonical point to the individual paginated page or the base page?
-
Dr. Pete,
Do you have any search/sort filters that may be spinning out other copies, beyond just the paginated series? That could be clouding the issue, and these things do get complicated. - How about this is the case? What would you recommend?
Gary
-
Since last week we have chosen to append the page number to the title. Let's see if/how GWMTs status changes.
I would think that the next possible flag would then be on the page-description on paginated pages
-
I suspect you're ok, then. I'd watch those GWT numbers, but unless you're seeing problems with indexation and ranking, then I'd just consider that a notice. I think you're handling it by the book, at least as well as currently possible with Google's changing and somewhat mixed signals on the subject.
-
Thanks for that answer. I am already using the pageNo in GWMT (as paginates). None of the searches spin out other copies - what I see in GWMT is only related to browsing through a product category and paginating.
-
Unfortunately, it can be really tough to tell if Google is honoring the rel=prev/next tags, but I've had gradually better luck with those tags this year. I honestly the GWT issue is a mistake on Google's part, and probably isn't a big deal. They do technically index all of the pages in the series, but the rel=prev/next tags should mitigate any ranking issues that could occur from near-duplicate content. You could add the page # to the title, but I doubt it would have any noticeable impact (other than possibly killing the GWT warning).
I would not canonical to the top page - that's specifically not recommended by Google and has fallen in disfavor over the past couple of years. Technically, you can canonical to a "View All" page, but that has its own issues (practically speaking - such as speed and usability).
Do you have any search/sort filters that may be spinning out other copies, beyond just the paginated series? That could be clouding the issue, and these things do get complicated.
I've had luck in the past with using META NOINDEX, FOLLOW on pages 2+ of pagination, but I've gradually switched to rel=prev/next. Google seems to be getting pickier about NOINDEX, and doesn't always follow the cues consistently. Unfortunately, this is true for all of the cues/tags these days.
Sorry, that's a very long way of saying that I suspect you're ok in this case, as long as the tags are properly implemented. You could tell GWT to ignore the page= parameter in parameter handling, but I'm honestly not sure what impact that has in conjunction with rel=prev/next. It might kill the warning, but the warning's just a warning.
-
I frequently use the page number in titles. It's not a bad solution where you want them all to get indexed.
Keep an eye on whether it affects CTR from the results though. I also like to ensure that there is always a link to the first page of results. This is useful for the user and also helps push more authority to that first page so that it is more likely to be the one that appears.
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 content
I have one client with two domains, identical products to appear on both domains. How should I handle this?
Technical SEO | | Hazel_Key0 -
Do you need a canonical tag for search and filter pages?
Hi Moz Community, We've been implementing new canonical tags for our category pages but I have a question about pages that are found via search and our filtering options. Would we still need a canonical tag for pages that show up in search + a filter option if it only lists one page of items? Example below. www.uncommongoods.com/search.html/find/?q=dog&exclusive=1 Thanks!
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Can i use "nofollow" tag on product page (duplicated content)?
Hi, im working on my webstore SEO. I got descriptions from official seller like "Bosch". I got more than 15.000 items so i cant create unique content for each product. Can i use nofollow tag for each product and create great content on category pages? I dont wanna lose rankings because duplicated content. Thank you for help!
Technical SEO | | pejtupizdo0 -
301 redirect: canonical or non canonical?
Hi, Newbie alert! I need to set up 301 redirects for changed URLs on a database driven site that is to be redeveloped shortly. The current site uses canonical header tags. The new site will also use canonical tags. Should the 301 redirects map the canonical URL on the old site to the corresponding canonical for the new design . . . or should they map the non canonical database URLs old and new? Given that the purpose of canonicals is to indicate our preferred URL, then my guess is that's what I should use. However, how can I be sure that Google (for example) has indexed the canonical in every case? Thx in anticipation.
Technical SEO | | ztalk1120 -
Do I need both canonical meta tags AND 301 redirects?
I implemented a 301 redirect set to the "www" version in the .htaccess (apache server) file and my logs are DOWN 30-40%! I have to be doing something wrong! AddType application/x-httpd-php .html .htm RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^luckygemstones.com
Technical SEO | | spkcp111
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.htm
RewriteRule ^(.)index.htm$ http://www.luckygemstones.com/$1 [R=301,L] IndexIgnore *
ErrorDocument 404 http://www.luckygemstones.com/page-not-found.htm
ErrorDocument 500 http://www.luckygemstones.com/internal-serv-error.htm
ErrorDocument 403 http://www.luckygemstones.com/forbidden-request.htm
ErrorDocument 401 http://www.luckygemstones.com/not-authorized.htm I've also started adding canoncial META's to EACH page: I'm using HMTL 4.0 loose still--1000's of pages--painful to convert to HTML5 so I left the / off the tag so it would validate. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks, Kathleen0 -
SEO Mox reporting all pages & titles as duplicate, but this is not the case.
HI, I am confused . This week SEOMoz is reporting that all my pages and pages titles are duplicate. This is not the case. I have added geo meta tags to each page - could this be causing the duplicate page content condition? I have no theory about the title duplicate condition. I have uploaded pdfs of these seomoz reports here: http://www.2shared.com/document/JAgS2Ni9/Issue_-Duplicate_Page_Content.html http://www.2shared.com/document/gyXcMsoP/Issue-Duplicate_Page_Title-.html Help please. thanks.
Technical SEO | | RichardB20 -
Should rel canonical tags include the root domain
It does sound like a silly question but bear with me a little... I recently installed on my Joomla website a module that automatically creates rel canonical tags for pages that contain lists that can be sorted by different criteria: (price, alphabetic order, etc...) I know that a proper canonical tag should look like this: However, the module I'm using creates the following structure Will this work? I mean, will it be "understood" by the bots? To see what the module actually does, you can visit the following link http://www.quipeutlefaire.fr/fr/index.php?sort=price&sort_direction=desc&limit=10&limitstart=0&option=com_auctions&category=240 In the source code you will see that the canonical tag is Which is the original "unsorted" page. Thanks in advance for your help
Technical SEO | | QPLF0 -
Catch 22 on duplicate page titles
Hi all, I'm quite new to the SEO space so I apologise if all the information below isn't technically perfect. I ran the SEOmoz pro tool for the first time a month ago (fantastic tool). It picked up a wealth of errors on our site that we are now working on. the problem: we use dynamic pages to display job listings pulled from our database that have picked up many duplicate page titles and content. For example: _Landing page: _http://www.arm.co.uk/jobs/it-contract-jobs/sec=itcontractjobs _Page 2: _http://www.arm.co.uk/jobs/1/-/-/2/itcontractjobs-/9999/2 _Page 3: _http://www.arm.co.uk/jobs/1/-/-/2/itcontractjobs-/9999/3 Following the results of the Moz tool we have now 'no indexed' and 'no followed' the dynamic pages and the errors have dramatically dropped, great! However, on reflection we generate quite a lot of traffic to individual job's listed on our website. By no following the pages we have restricted passing on any 'juice' to these pages, and by no indexing we may be taking them out of Googles index completely. These dynamic pages and individual job listings do generate a lot of traffic to our website via organic search. We do submit the site index to Google that should index the individual jobs that way. So, the question is (I hope this is making sense), are the gains of reducing errors picked up in the moz tool (to improve the overall site performance) likely to outweigh the traffic generated on these dynamically generated pages by being indexed and followed by Google. Ultimately we would like the static landing pages to retain a stronger page rank. Any guidance is very much appreciated. Best Regards,
Technical SEO | | ARMofficial
Sam.0