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
-
Is it cloaking/hiding text if textual content is no longer accessible for mobile visitors on responsive webpages?
My company is implementing a responsive design for our website to better serve our mobile customers. However, when I reviewed the wireframes of the work our development company is doing, it became clear to me that, for many of our pages, large parts of the textual content on the page, and most of our sidebar links, would no longer be accessible to a visitor using a mobile device. The content will still be indexable, but hidden from users using media queries. There would be no access point for a user to view much of the content on the page that's making it rank. This is not my understanding of best practices around responsive design. My interpretation of Google's guidelines on responsive design is that all of the content is served to both users and search engines, but displayed in a more accessible way to a user depending on their mobile device. For example, Wikipedia pages have introductory content, but hide most of the detailed info in tabs. All of the information is still there and accessible to a user...but you don't have to scroll through as much to get to what you want. To me, what our development company is proposing fits the definition of cloaking and/or hiding text and links - we'd be making available different content to search engines than users, and it seems to me that there's considerable risk to their interpretation of responsive design. I'm wondering what other people in the Moz community think about this - and whether anyone out there has any experience to share about inaccessable content on responsive webpages, and the SEO impact of this. Thank you!
Web Design | | mmewdell0 -
Increasing content, adding rich snippets... and losing tremendous amounts of organic traffic. Help!
I know dramatic losses in organic traffic is a common occurrence, but having looked through the archives I'm not sure that there's a recent case that replicates my situation. I've been working to increase the content on my company's website and to advise it on online marketing practices. To that end, in the past four months, I've created about 20% more pages — most of which are very high quality blog posts; adopted some rich snippets (though not all that I would like to see at this point); improved and increased internal links within the site; removed some "suspicious" pages as id'd by Moz that had a lot of links on it (although the content was actually genuine navigation); and I've also begun to guest blog. All of the blog content I've written has been connected to my G+ account, including most of the guest blogging. And... our organic traffic is preciptiously declining. Across the board. I'm befuddled. I can see no warnings (redirects &c) that would explain this. We haven't changed the site structure much — I think the most invasive thing we did was optimize our title tags! So no URL changes, nothing. Obviously, we're all questioning all the work I've done. It just seems like we've sunk SO much energy into "doing the right thing" to no effect (this site was slammed before for its shady backlink buying — though not from any direct penalty, just as a result of the Penguin update). We noticed traffic taking a particular plunge at the beginning of June. Can anyone offer insights? Very much appreciated.
Web Design | | Novos_Jay0 -
White Text / Black Background & SEO Impact
Does anyone know of any testing / studies with evidence that Google prefers dark text on a light background vs. light text on a dark background? I have a website that currently has light text on a black background, and really like the way it looks, but am concerned that the style may be hurting SEO. Moreover, redesigning something inverse with the same quality would be a large project and fairly costly, so I'd like to make sure the benefit will really be worth the cost before moving forward.
Web Design | | Bromtec0 -
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 -
How will it affect my site if i link to a site with adult content?
We are currently working on creating 2 sites for a company, one with no adult content, one with adult content. Will it affect the non adult content site if i link to the other one in terms of Google and being blocked by some internet providers.
Web Design | | MattWheatcroft0 -
Canonical url with pagination
I would like to find out what is the standard approach for sections of the site with large number of records being displayed using pagination. They don't really contain the same content, but if title tag isn't changed it seem to process it as duplicate content where the parameter in the url indicating the next page is used. For the time being I've added ' : Page 1' etc. at the end of the title tag for each separate page with the results, but is there a better way of doing it? Should I use the canonical url here pointing to the main page before pagination shows up in the url?
Web Design | | coremediadesign0 -
Does listing my customer's address, phone number, and a contact form on "every page" count as duplicate content that they'd be penalized for?
I work with small local businesses (like Tree Farms, Feed Stores, Counselors, etc) doing web design, seo, etc. I encourage them to have their contact information visible at all times on their websites. I'm also delving into the world of contact forms. I want to have this info on every page - is this detrimental? Here's an example: http://www.trinityescape.net/marriage-couples-counselors-therapy-clermont-florida/ Thank you!
Web Design | | mikjgens1 -
Outsourcing Content - Finding Superior Providers...
I am looking for content writers. Not textbroker.com, I want content written that isnt scraped and reworded from information already in google. Can anyone recommend a company which isnt afraid to read a book or a magazine, dig up old information to write something truly unique? This should likely be in a fresh thread, but ill put it here as a side note. If you also can recommend a wordpress or joomla theme designer who has his own creative ideas and is highly skilled...
Web Design | | getbigyadig0
