Duplicate Content & Canonicals
-
I am a bit confused about canonicals and whether they are "working" properly on my site. In Webmaster Tools, I'm showing about 13,000 pages flagged for duplicate content, but nearly all of them are showing two pages, one URL as the root and a second with parameters. Case in point, these two are showing as duplicate content:
http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/vincent-van-gogh/starry-night
We have a canonical tag on each of the pages pointing to the one without the parameters. Pages with other parameters don't show as duplicates, just one root and one dupe per listing,
So, am I not using the canonical tag properly? It is clearly listed as:Is the tag perhaps not formatted properly (I saw someone somewhere state that there needs to be a /> after the URL, but that seems rather picky for Google)?Suggestions?
-
Thanks, Dr. Pete.
I'll discuss the options with our dev team and see which one will cause the least amount of developer caffeine consumption.
-
Argh... sorry, I didn't even check/see that. Yeah, that may be a real problem - you're basically sending two canonicalization signals that are in conflict. Is there any way to hide the defaults? If the canonicals point to (A), but then (A) redirects to (B), Google may just ignore the canonical.
Unfortunately, your options are to either: (1) hope for the best, (2) canonical to the uglier URL, or (3) kill the redirect and set the default parameters on the server-side (without resetting the URL).
I am primarily seeing the canonical URL in Google's index, so I'm not sure it's actually causing you harm. It's just not an ideal situation.
-
Dr. Pete:
I'm looking into it to be sure, but I believe that you are correct in that this is an ad-tracking URL.
A follow up question:
The URL that is the canonical version of each page would be in the format of
http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/vincent-van-gogh/starry-night
However, this exact URL redirects to one with default parameters for substrate, style and frame size:
Should we change our canonical from the first URL (without the parameters) to the second URL with the parameters? Or is that a moot point with Google?
-
While the properly closed tag should have "... />", that's generally only an issue in very isolated cases. I've never seen it interfere with a canonical tag. It's a harmless change to make (and it is more correct), but my gut reaction is that this will make no difference. Google should be honoring these canonicals.
One odd thing I'm seeing. If I dig into the index, I'm finding the following page:
This may be an ad-tracking URL (?) and it's redirecting somehow (but not with a 301 or 302) to the non-canonical URL. This may be sending a mixed signal, and ideally it would redirect to the canonical version of the URL. I'm not sure where this version is coming from, so it's a bit hard to diagnose.
-
Hi Darin
The tag is not working because if you go into Google and enter the URL: http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/vincent-van-gogh/starry-night?substrate_id=3&product_style_id=8&frame_id=63&size=25x20 you will see that it is being indexed on Google.
If it's being indexed, then it runs the risk of duplicate content issues.
The tag definitely does need the /> at the end, so the correct usage of the tag would be: rel="canonical" href="http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/vincent-van-gogh/starry-night" />
I think if you implement that small change, there shouldn't be any problems.
Hope this 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
-
Have Your Thoughts Changed Regarding Canonical Tag Best Practice for Pagination? - Google Ignoring rel= Next/Prev Tagging
Hi there, We have a good-sized eCommerce client that is gearing up for a relaunch. At this point, the staging site follows the previous best practice for pagination (self-referencing canonical tags on each page; rel=next & prev tags referencing the last and next page within the category). Knowing that Google does not support rel=next/prev tags, does that change your thoughts for how to set up canonical tags within a paginated product category? We have some categories that have 500-600 products so creating and canonicalizing to a 'view all' page is not ideal for us. That leaves us with the following options (feel it is worth noting that we are leaving rel=next / prev tags in place): Leave canonical tags as-is, page 2 of the product category will have a canonical tag referencing ?page=2 URL Reference Page 1 of product category on all pages within the category series, page 2 of product category would have canonical tag referencing page 1 (/category/) - this is admittedly what I am leaning toward. Any and all thoughts are appreciated! If this were in relation to an existing website that is not experiencing indexing issues, I wouldn't worry about these. Given we are launching a new site, now is the time to make such a change. Thank you! Joe
Web Design | | Joe_Stoffel1 -
How to check if the website has duplicate content?
I've been working with the websites from couple of months and it was always in my mind if there could be a legit way to find if the website have a duplicate content. I've tried couple of websites through google but nothing worked for me. It would be much appreciated if anyone can help. Thanks
Web Design | | rajveer_singh0 -
Should i be using shortcodes for my my page content.
Hello, I have a question. Sorry if this is been answered before. Recently I decided to do a little face lift to my main website pages. I wanted to make my testimonials more pretty. Found this great plugin for testimonials which creates shortcodes. I love how it looks like, but just realised that when I use images in shortcodes, these are not picked up by search engines 😞 only text is. Image search ability is pretty important for me and I'm not sure if I should stick with my plain design and upload images manually with all alt tags and title tags or there is a way to adjust shortcode so it shows images to search engines. You can see example here. https://a-fotografy.co.uk/maternity-photographer-edinburgh/ Let me know your thoughts guys. Regards, Armands
Web Design | | A_Fotografy1 -
How would a redesign, content update and URL change affect ranking?
Hi guys, I have a question that I suspect there is no simple true or false answer to, but perhaps someone has done the same thing as we're pondering wether or not to do? We're taking over an existing site that ranks very well on all the important keywords and is obviously very well liked by Google. The site is today hosted on a sub-domain (xxx.domain.com). When taking over, we'll have to redesign the site and recreate most of the content on the site (unique). The site structure, URLs, incoming links etc. will remain exactly the same. Since we are recreating the site, we also have the opportunity to move the site off the sub-domain and on to the main domain (domain.com/xxx - 85/100 Moz rank) and do a 301 Permanent Redirect on all old URLs. Our long-time experience is that content on the main domain, ranks way better than the sub-domain. The big question is wether or not Google will punish us for both changing the content and the location of the site at the same time? Cheers!
Web Design | | mattbs
Matt0 -
How to avoid duplicate title tags?
I've got roughly 1200 location pages for a travel client. Since the business does the same thing at every location, the title tags and descriptions are almost identical except for the location name. I know Google likes tags and meta descriptions to be unique, but how many different ways can I write the same title in a 55 character limit? For example, here's how the titles look: Things to do in San Jose, CA | Company Name
Web Design | | Masbro
Things to do in Dallas, TX | Company Name
Things to do in Albuquerque, NM | Company Name **My question: Are 1200 title tags structured this way unique enough for Google? ** I have got the same problem with the meta descriptions, but I can vary those a bit more because i have more characters to work with. Thanks for your input,
Dino2 -
Domain Consolidation & Proper Linking Strategy?
We have a client that operates 5 gyms in 5 different part of Miami, and each gym has its own website. All sites rank well and have a a good pagerank. For the purpose of their marketing and brand they would like 1 website developed which includes all of their gyms which we are launching later today. Each gym will have it's own landing page within the website Should we redirect the URL's of the different websites to the individual landing pages on the new site or how should that work to minimize any penalties on our SEO. For example (these are fake url's): www.gymA.com, www.gymB.com, www.gymC.com, www.gymD.com The new url: www.gym.com New landing pages:
Web Design | | POPCreative
www.gym.com/gymA, www.gym.com/gymB, www.gym.com/gymC, www.gym.com/gymD Should we do a redirect from: www.gymA.com to www.gym.com/gymA www.gymB.com to www.gym.com/gymB www.gymC.com to www.gym.com/gymC www.gymD.com to www.gym.com/gymD Thank you in advanced. If there is a better way to do this, or anything extra I need to know, that would be great. Thanks!0 -
Yes or No for Ampersand "&" in SEO URLs
Hi Mozzers I would like to know how crawlers see the ampersand (& or &) in your URLs and if Google frown upon this or not? As far as I know they purely recognise this as "and" is this correct and is there any best practice for implementing this, as I know a lot of people complained before about & in links and that it is better to use it as &, but this is not on links, this is on URLs. Reason for this is that we looking to move onto an ASP.Net MVC framework (any suggestions for a different framework are welcome, we still just planning out future development) and in order to make use of the filter options we have on our site we need a parameter to indicate the difference on a routing level (routing sends to controller, controller sends to model, model sends to controller and controller sends to view < this is pattern of a request that comes in on the framework we will be using). I already have -'s and /'s in the URLs (which is for my SEO structuring) so these syntax can't be used for identifying filters the user clicks or uses to define their search as it will create a complete mess in the system. Now we looking at & to say; OK, when a user lands on /accommodation and they selects De Kelders (which is a destination in our area) the page will be /accommodation/de-kelders on this page they can define their search further to say they are looking for 5 star accommodation and it should be close to the beach, this is where the routing needs some guidance and we looking to have it as follow: /accommodation/de-kelders/5-star&close-to-the-beach. Now, does the "&" get identified by search engines on a URL level as "and" and does this cause any issues with crawling or indexation or would it be best to look at another solution? Thanks, Chris Captivate
Web Design | | DROIDSTERS0 -
Duplicate H1 tag IF it holds SAME text?
Hello people, I know that majority of SEO gurus (?) claim that H1 tag should only be used once per page. In the landing page design I'm working with, we actually need to repeat our core message stated in H1 & H2 - at the bottom of the page. Now the question is: Can that in any way cause any ranking penalty from big G? In my eyes that is not attempt to over optimize page as it contains SAME info as the H1 & H2 at the top of the page. Confusing, so I'm hope that some SEO gurus here will share some light on this. Thanks in advance!
Web Design | | RetroOnline0