Duplicate Page Titles & Content
-
We have just launched a new version of a website and after running it through SEOMOZ we have over 6000 duplicate title & content errors. (awesome)
We have products that show up multiple times under different URLs however we "thought" we had implemented the rel=canonical correctly.
My question is - do these errors still show up in SEOMOZ despite the canonical tags being there OR if they were "correct" would we be getting "zero" errors?
-
Hi Ladies & Gents
It was a canonical tag error - we went from 6000 errors to 11500 errors and now after the issue was fixed we have a handful of non related errors to sort.
Really appreciate all the feedback.
Kind Regards
Liam
-
how are you getting on, did this get resolved?
-
Hey Peter, I'm just having problems with the 4th example, and I believe you are doing it wrong. Not to try to point out problems with your software, but the report that I now have is more or less unusable for my clients because you see the duplicates this way.
What we have, is duplicates reaching to different categories with canonical set up.
B references A in category 1
D references C in category 2
and hundreds more ...But, because B and D are empty, except for the navigation, the tool sees B and D as duplicates. Two problems with that:
1. They are not even "considered" by Google, because they reference something else as a canonical, so they are not duplicates of each other.
2. The report now shows 10 different pages from different categories as duplicates, and with the number of false identified duplicates it is now impossible for me to find any real duplicates.So, is my understanding wrong, and what can we do to find the really duplicated pages?
Thanks,
-
Hi there,
Thanks for reaching out to us! I'm sorry if there are any confusions regarding the way we classify duplicate content. Just clarify a few things, 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.For more information on using canonical tags, check out this great post by our very own Dr. Pete:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questionsI hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Best,
Peter
SEOmoz Help Team. -
Thanks for the responses - sort of what I feared but haven't implemented canonical tags before so was unsure whether they should be showing.
Looks like there is a long day ahead
-
I am afraid i don’t know the detailed ins and outs of SEOMozs products, however we have some paginated pages on one of our sites. Our crawl reports are not showing errors for duplicate page titles and they are detailed in the notices section as canonical.
This implies to me that the crawl reports do ignore correctly formatted canonical tags. Perhaps you could download the error list and the list of discovered canonical tags and compare the two to confirm. Alternately try crawling the site with other tools, the one i would recommend is Screaming Frog as this will allow you to filter canonical tags in the reports, and do it for free.
-
Hi,
All things being equal, if the canonical tags are properly implemented you should see zero.
For ecomm sites, it is pretty easy to get duplicate title and content warnings from similar but not identical product pages which is usually an indication of thin content (no descriptions or one line descriptions that are almost identical).
So first line of enquiry is to confirm the canonicals are really doing what you expect them to be doing and if after the next crawl you still see duplicate issues then download them in a csv and start investigating them to see which pages are being flagged.
Hope that helps!
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
-
Missing/Duplicate Content but it's definitely all right!
We are having some issues flag up through our MOZ software on multiple pages on www.ukpods.co.uk website such as missing content, missing metatags, missing title, duplicate content, Missing/Invalid H1 but having checked and spoken to our website developer all the content is there. 1 page as an example is https://ukpods.co.uk/pods-storage/decluttering/ It says the below items are missing or invalid but you cna see they are all there in the below - are they not being picked up and read for any reason? Title: http://bit.ly/2P6v9To Description: http://bit.ly/356BkvY H1: http://bit.ly/2PrlmpU Canonical tag: http://bit.ly/355rQRU Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | RachelMiller0 -
Are AMP pages affecting mobile search visibility?
Hello fellow Mozzers. I've recently seen a fairly hefty drop in search visibility on Google mobile, from 12.8% to 4.1%. Desktop visibility is unaffected. The same search visibility drop is echoed in SEMRush. However, Google Analytics shows that our site traffic from mobile hasn't changed. The only thing I can think of is that we recently launched AMP pages. I know Google sometimes caches AMPs so they’re served off google domains. Could that mean that the cached version of the page is ranking rather than our own? That would explain the drop in visibility but stable traffic I think?! What other explanation could it be? Many thanks in advance, Kit
Moz Pro | | KitSmith0 -
Title tags drawn from breadcrumbs
My client has a magento site that we've recently started working on. After the site was crawled by Moz a couple of times we noticed there was an issue with title tags being too long. However, when we looked closer at the data, Moz was seemingly picking up the breadcrumbs as the title tag. The actual tag is a small part of the breadcrumbs, but Moz was reporting they were the same. For example:
Moz Pro | | Stone_Junction
Breadcrumbs - home>products>category A of products
Title Tag - category A of products I just wondered if anyone else has had this problem? Is it Moz's mistake or is the title tag auto generating from the breadcrumbs and cutting off the beginning somehow? Any information would be really helpful, thanks.0 -
On Link Analysis tab I my best pages are 301 and 404 pages.
I looked on my redirrect file and found that /* redirects to /v/404.asp.
Moz Pro | | sbetzen
However if you look below at the link analysis the 404 page is getting a 404 error.
The homepage ecowindchimes.com/ is getting a 301 (but I don't know where it is going to).
The third one is also redirected. 1. [No Data] ecowindchimes.com/ ||| 301 ||| 2 ||| 36 2. 2. [No Data] ecowindchimes.com/v/404.asp ||| 404 ||| 2 ||| 34 3. [No Data] 3. ecowindchimes.com/index.html?lang=en-us&target=d2.html ||| 301 ||| 1 ||| 33 So I have 2 questions: 1) should this be fixed? and 2) how? This is a volusion site and I believe the "catchall" redirect was done by them0 -
Duplicate pages with canonical links still show as errors
On our CMS, there are duplicate pages such as /news, /news/, /news?page=1, /news/?page=1. From an SEO perspective, I'm not too worried, because I guess Google is pretty capable of sorting this out, but to be on the safe side, I've added canonical links. /news itself has no link, but all the other variants have links to "/news". (And if you go wild and add a bunch of random meaningless parameters, creating /news/?page=1&jim=jam&foo=bar&this=that, we will laugh at you and generate a canonical link back to "/news". We're clever like that.) So far so good. And everything appears to work fine. But SEOMoz is still flagging up errors about duplicate titles and duplicate content. If you click in, you'll see a "Note" on each error, showing that SEOMoz has found the canonical link. So SEOMoz knows the duplication isn't a problem, as we're using canonical links exactly the way they're supposed to be used, and yet is still flagging it as an error. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is it just a bug in SEOMoz?
Moz Pro | | LockyDotser0 -
Domain.com and domain.com/index.html duplicate content in reports even with rewrite on
I have a site that was recently hit by the Google penguin update and dropped a page back. When running the site through seomoz tools, I keep getting duplicate content in the reports for domain.com and domain.com/index.html, even though I have a 301 rewrite condition. When I test the site, domain.com/index.html redirects to domain.com for all directories and root. I don't understand how my index page can still get flagged as duplicate content. I also have a redirect from domain.com to www.domain.com. Is there anything else I need to do or add to my htaccess file? Appreciate any clarification on this.
Moz Pro | | anthonytjm0 -
I have another Duplicate page content Question to ask.Why does my blog tags come up as duplicates when my page gets crawled,how do I fix it?
I have a blog linked to my web page.& when rogerbot crawls my website it considers tags for my blog pages duplicate content.is there any way I can fix this? Thanks for your advice.
Moz Pro | | PCTechGuy20120 -
We were unable to grade that page. We received a response code of 301\. URL content not parseable
I am using seomoz webapp tool for my SEO on my site. I have run into this issue. Please see the attached file as it has the screen scrape of the error. I am running an on page scan from seomoz for the following url: http://www.racquetsource.com/squash-racquets-s/95.htm When I run the scan I receive the following error: We were unable to grade that page. We received a response code of 301. URL content not parseable. This page had worked previously. I have tried to verify my 301 redirects and am unable to resolve this error. I can perform other on page scans and they work fine. Is this a known problem with this tool? I have verified ensuring I don't have it defined. Any help would be appreciated.
Moz Pro | | GeoffBatterham0