Update in Moz spider/tools?? Flagging duplicate content / ignoring canonical
-
Hi all,
Has there been an update in the SEOmoz crawling software?
We now have thousands of dupe content/page title warnings for paginated product page URLs that have correctly formatted canonicals.
e.g.
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
... has following pages with identical content that have been flagged:
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4
..plus 4 more URL's.
But they all have canonical set. There's even a notice at the bottom of report that tells us there's a canonical set to http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
What gives, SEOmoz ??
Thanks
Michael
-
Hey Lawrence,
Campaigns have a 95% tolerance for duplicate content. This includes all the source code on the page and not just the viewable text. So if a URL is at least 95% similar in code and content to another URL, this warning will appear.
You can run your own tests using this tool: http://www.webconfs.com/similar-page-checker.php
We don't know what standard Google uses, but it's safe to say they are a bit more sophisticated than us - so you might be okay in this regard as long as you have a couple hundred words of unique text and some unique coding per page. Google won't say how much duplicate content is too much, so we like to be better safe than sorry.
I hope this help. Let me know if you need further assistance.
-Chiaryn
-
Hi Chiaryn,
Thanks for reply and explanation. The different colour-specific pages e.g. Tweed Green and Olive Green have some different content but it's nothing like enough in cases of two greens, two blues etc. as we simplify colour names for search so when there is an Olive and a Tweed Green they both end up having 'Green' as variable in page title, H1 etc. Will fix this.
Do you think the reviews at the bottom of the pages will also trigger dupe content warning? i.e. even if we make all other on-page elements unique for each colour url? (page title, H1, H2, prod description etc) The reviews are quite extensive and are the same on all the separate colour specific product page versions of each style and was thinking today whether we should remove them from these colour product pages (OR perhaps let the colour product pages have their OWN reviews)
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
Thanks again
-
Oh, brilliant (re: "See more" aspect) Thanks for the info. Will let you how we tackle this and the repercussions (!) and look forward to hearing how you get on also!
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for writing in. I already emailed you in response to the ticket you sent in to the Help Desk, but I will copy my answer here for you review.
--
I looked into your campaign and it seems that this is happening because of where your canonical tags are pointing. These pages are considered duplicates because their canonical tags point to different URLs. For example, http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx is considered a duplicate of http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4 because the canonical tag for the first page is http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx while the canonical for the second URL ishttp://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx, with one URL showing tweed-green and the other showing olive-green.
Since the canonical tags point to different URLs it is assumed that http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx and http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx are likely to be duplicates themselves.
Here is how our system interprets duplicate content vs. rel canonical:
Assuming A, B, C, and D are all duplicates,
If A references B as the canonical, then they are not considered duplicates
If A and B both reference C as canonical, A and B are not considered duplicates of each other
If A references C as a canonical, A and B are considered duplicated
If A references C as canonical, B references D, then A and B are considered duplicates
The examples you've provided actually fall into the fourth example I've listed above.I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
--
-Chiaryn
-
We use the "See more" script on our sites, and from what I understand, at least from other Mozzers, this is an okay practice. http://www.seomoz.org/q/using-more-info-javascript-toggledisplay-tag-for-more-info-text
We also use the rel="prev" and rel="next" to some success, but I can't comment on how that's functioning canonical-wise, because IT WAS DROPPED from our latest redesign and is going to be added to our client's website in the latest release. Oye.
I'd love to hear how this works out for you. There are some really great Mozzers on here with loads of experience about canonical tags and duplicate page issues. Can't wait to see what they have to contribute.
-
Hi there,
Thanks for your response.
It's not product page A being seen as a duplicate of product page B etc, but several versions of product A seen as duplicate due to pagination, stemming from reviews for the products that span several pages, so making the rest of the content, titles etc different other than the (crawlable) reviews isn't really an option.
Will look more into "noindex, follow" tags in pagination.
We could have a View All page for indexing showing all reviews (with lots of scrolling!) , with the paginated versions canonicalized to that version (could still serve the paginated version of product page from site navigation perhaps with "noindex, follow" meta tag) Text doesn’t take long to load and this approach would consolidate the review content.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html
Other option is to use rel=”prev” and rel=”next” implementation which shows Google the relationship between the pages (not sure if it will still be flagged as dupe content in SEOmoz though! Depends if they follow the tag). This way individual pages might get indexed (not sure if that's a good thing?!) perhaps if there's something in a review from (say) page 5 of the product reviews.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
Ideally I'd like to implement all reviews on one page and hide them with a facebook-style 'See more' function. Not sure if that counts as hiding content? Will look into this.
-
Hi Michael,
Not sure if this helps you out at all, but I found this about the canonicals and SEOMoz crawl report in a previous Q http://mz.cm/11erRj6:
As far as the SEOmoz crawl reports go, not that setting a canonical won't stop these pages being reported as duplicate content.
From the help:
"Keep in mind that that canonicals will stop the pages from ranking against each other, but they will still show up as duplicate content from a UI perspective, so we will still count them as duplicate."
I have the same issues on my accounts. I'm focusing on making the pages content as unique as possible, or using the "noindex, follow" meta tags to see if that makes a difference.
I know you may have a lot of pages on your website, but perhaps writing short descriptions on your products would help. It might be worthwhile, but completely understandable that it may be a huge undertaking if you have hundreds or thousands of pages.
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
-
Is this owned by moz?
We continue to get hundreds of spam links per month, and just found a link from here. I do not believe this is owned by moz. https://www.wapz.net/ Maybe I'm wrong? Thanks.
Moz Pro | | plahpoy0 -
Multiple Countries, Same Language: Receiving Duplicate Page & Content Errors
Hello! I have a site that serves three English-speaking countries, and is using subfolders for each country version: United Kingdom: https://site.com/uk/ Canada: https://site.com/ca/ United States & other English-speaking countries: https://site.com/en/ The site displayed is dependent on where the user is located, and users can also change the country version by using a drop-down flag navigation element in the navigation bar. If a user switches versions using the flag, the first URL of the new language version includes a language parameter in the URL, like: https://site.com/uk/blog?language=en-gb In the Moz crawl diagnostics report, this site is getting dinged for lots of duplicate content because the crawler is finding both versions of each country's site, with and without the language parameter. However, the site has rel="canonical" tags set up on both URL versions and none of the URLs containing the "?language=" parameter are getting indexed. So...my questions: 1. Are the Duplicate Title and Content errors found by the Moz crawl diagnostic really an issue? 2. If they are, how can I best clean this up? Additional notes: the site currently has no sitemaps (XML or HTML), and is not yet using the hreflang tag. I intend to create sitemaps for each country version, like: .com/en/sitemap.xml .com/ca/sitemap.xml .com/uk/sitemap.xml I thought about putting a 'nofollow' tag on the flag navigation element, but since no sitemaps are in place I didn't want to accidentally cut off crawler access to alternate versions. Thanks for your help!
Moz Pro | | Allie_Williams0 -
Is SEOmoz spider ignoring my redirect?
My client was previously serving their website from both a .co.uk and a .com domain. The DNS for each of these domains was pointing to the same place, rather than redirecting. I saw this as a potential duplicate content problem so I set the .co.uk to 301 redirect on to the .com. As a user, the 301 seems to be working correctly. However, now that I have done this, SEOmoz is picking up thousands of "inbound" links from the .co.uk domain. Essentially, every single link on the internal site, is being duplicated in my stats as an inbound link as well. It appears that the spider is ignoring the redirect. I'm not sure if it's a legitimate issue that will upset Google too, or if it's just a bug with SEOMoz's spider.
Moz Pro | | MadisonSolutions0 -
Duplicate page content on / and index.php
Hi I am new to SEOmoz and in the crawl diagnostics for one of my clients it came back duplicate content on the homepage www.myclient.co.uk and on the www.myclient.co.uk/index.php which is obviously the same page. I understand that the key is to do a 301 redirect from the index to /, however how will I know that this will not just create an ever ending loop on the server? From your experience how is the best way to tackle this crawl error? Also is there a specific question that I need to ask the server?
Moz Pro | | search_shop0 -
Canonical link on canonical url
This might seem a bit of an odd one, but we seem to be going around in circles on this when using the on page optimizer tool. We have an ecommerce site (magento) which by default is putting a canonical link in the header on every product page. For example; www.example.com/product1.html has the But when we run the on page optimiser tool, we're losing points on the critical section for not having canonical set correctly. If we remove the tag, we get the tick and the a grade, but then further down the report we lose a tick for not using canonical links. What are we missing here?
Moz Pro | | andyjsi0 -
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!
Moz Pro | | icecarats0 -
90% of our sites that are designed are in wordpress and the report brings up "duplicate" content errors. I presume this is down to a conical error?
We are looking at getting the Agency version of SEOMoz and are based in the UK Could you please tell me what would be the best way to correct this issue as this appears to be a problem with all our clients websites. an example would be www.fsgenergy.co.uk Would you also be able to suggest the best SEO plugin to use with SEOMOz ? Many thanks Paul
Moz Pro | | KloodLtd1 -
How often does site explorer update.
My webmaster tools info is completely differernt to the opensite explorer info, I understand that site explorer only updates every so often but i reckon it been around four months since my stats were updated. Is there anywhere else i could view this info like PR and domain authority and actually get up to date info. Many thanks
Moz Pro | | totaldriveways0