Is SeoMOZ Crawl Diagnostics wrong here?
-
We've been getting a ton of critical errors (about 80,000) in SeoMoz' Crawl Diagnostics saying we have duplicate content in our client's E-commerce site. Some of the errors are correct, but a lot of the pages are variations like:
www.example.com/productlist?page=1
www.example.com/productlist?page=2
However, in our source code we have used rel="prev" and rel="next" so in my opinion we should be alright.
Would love to hear from you if we have made a mistake or if it is an error in SeoMoz.
Here's a full paste of the script:
-
Just a minor clarification - you can use both rel=prev/next and rel=canonical, IF you have something like search filters. Then, the canonical would point to the unfiltered current page and the rel=prev/next would point to the filtered paginated pages. Yeah, I know, that made a lot of sense. Let's say your page is:
http://example.com/stuff?page=2&sort=price
...then you might have
It's more than a little confusing.
Definitely check out that JavaScript issue, though - it might be that bots aren't seeing what people are seeing, and that could be very dangerous.
-
Hi,
In regards the rel=next you are absolutely right, I must have overlooked it or just searched for the prev tag. So yes as far as proper implementation of the prev/next in that respect it is correct and please ignore that last part of my first post!
Turning of javascript is instructive to see all those tags on their individual page and helps clarify what exactly is being outputted and when without the dynamic loading, providing you don't miss a rel=next tag that is really there
-
Hi Lynn,
Thank you very much for your answer / analysis! As you said "It is a bit confusing" and I will just read your answer a couple of times...
I will grant your answer "Good answer" for you thorough analysis! I think it is spot on with the double "next/prev" and "rel=can" tags. I do have one remark. You said: When I turn off javescript, I get this:
In my opinion this is alright, because it shouldn't have a "prev" as this is the initial page.
-
Hi,
I had a look at what I assume is the site and I think you have a combination of things going on that is likely causing confusion (to you, to the moz bot, probably to google too!)
Firstly, it is not recommended to use rel prev/next and rel canonical on the same page. With that what you are effectively doing is only indexing the first page of the results since all the other pages rel canonical back to the first one. If you have a 'view all' type page then you could rel canonical all of the paginated pages back to this one and you would not need to use the prev/next tags at all. It is also possible that your use of relative canonical links in combination with the above is also causing confusion, usually best to use absolute urls if possible.
Beyond that, the site dynamically loads more products as you scroll down the page which also results in the url changing to hoeretelefon/? for ALL the pages. If that is a problem or not depends on how it is coded and how the google and seomoz bots are deciding to parse the page, but it certainly adds another potential area of complexity to the issue.
Lastly, if you browse the site with javascript turned off you can see something odd in that the initial page /elektronik/baerbar-lyd/hoeretelefon has no prev/next OR canonical tag but has a link to /elektronik/baerbar-lyd/hoeretelefon?page=1 on which you find prev/next and canonicals back to the non paginated version. So you are basically skipping the pagination setup that goes from the original to the page=1 (but also giving a canonical back to the original page).
Phew! It is a bit confusing. I would recommend deciding on if you want to go with prev/next or canonical in the first place and take it from there. I would think that if you have the ability to canonical to a 'see all products page' then this might be the best way to go since it should theoretically take care of any issues the dynamic loading is causing also.
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
-
Crawl Diagnostics Summary Problem
We added our website a Robots.txt file and there are pages blocked by robots.txt. Crawl Diagnostics Summary page shows there is no page blocked by Robots.txt. Why?
Moz Pro | | iskq0 -
Crawl Diagnostics - Historical Summary
As we've been fixing errors on our website, the crawl diagnostic graphs have been showing great results (top left to bottom right for errors). The problem is the graphs themselves aren't very pretty. I can't use them in my internal reports (all internal reports are standardised colours/formats). Is there anyway of exporting the top level summary with historic data so the graphs can be recreated in company colours? I don't want the detailed CSV breakdown of what errors occurred, but rather than on X date there were Y errors, the next month Z errors and so forth. The data must already be in the SEOMoz system in order to create the graphs themselves - I was hoping this can be made available to us if it isn't already? Does anyone know if there is already a way of doing this? I've tried to 'inspect element' and find the underlying data in the source code but to no avail, and can't see any exports that would do this. Thanks in advance Dean
Moz Pro | | FashionLux0 -
SEOmoz tool Issue?
Hi Mozzers, I am doing a web maintenance task for a client and it's been weeks that Moz is detecting 49 duplicate pages ( contact page). I thought resolving the issue when creating the xml sitemap and excluding those duplicates. The moz tool would still detect them, so I went in making a search with some of these duplicate to check if they were indexed but non of them were indexed. So my question is has anyone recently experienced similar issues? Is the moz tool not 100% accurate? Thanks for sharing your thoughts and answers
Moz Pro | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Seomoz and site explorer completely different
seomoz and site explorer completely different results on own site and competitors on moz i am ahead in all aspects in site explorer i am way off par...why
Moz Pro | | lordmoose85450 -
SEOMOZ Crawling Our Site
Hi there, We get a report from SEOMOZ every week which shows our performance within search. I noticed for our website www.unifor.com.au that it looks through over 10,000 pages, however our website sells less than 500 products so not sure why or how so many pages are trawled? If someone could let me know that would be great. It uses up a lot of bandwidth doing each of these searches so if the amount of pages being trawled reduced it would definitely assist. Thanks, Geoff
Moz Pro | | BeerCartel750 -
SEOMOZ Crawler unicode bug
for the last couple of weeks the SEOMOZ crawls my homepage only and gets 4xx error for most of the URL's. the crawler have no issues with English url's only with the unicode(Hebrew) ones. this is what is see in the csv export for the crawl (one sample) : http://www.funstuff.co.il/׳ž׳¡׳™׳‘׳×-׳¨׳•׳•׳§׳•׳× 404 text/html; charset=utf-8 you can see that the URL is Gibberish please help.
Moz Pro | | AsafY0 -
Sub-domain not crawled
One of our sites was recently re-designed. The home page is a landing page (www.labadieauto.com) and I moved the blog to this domain (labadieauto.com/blog/) and put a link is the bottom left of the home page. Since the change the SEOMOZ campaign overview is showing only 1 page crawled. This is not setup as a sub-domain so why isn't it showing in the crawl? Help!
Moz Pro | | LabadieAuto0 -
Canonical tags and SEOmoz crawls
Hi there. Recently, we've made some changes to http://www.gear-zone.co.uk/ to implement canonical tags to some dynamically generated pages to stop duplicate content issues. Previously, these were blocked with robots.txt. In Webmaster Tools, everything looks great - pages crawled has shot up, and overall traffic and sales has seen a positive increase. However the SEOmoz crawl report is now showing a huge increase in duplicate content issues. What I'd like to know is whether SEOmoz registers a canonical tag as preventing a piece of duplicate content, or just adds to it the notices report. That is, if I have 10 pages of duplicate content all with correct canonical tags, will I still see 10 errors in the crawl, but also 10 notices showing a canonical has been found? Or, should it be 0 duplicate content errors, but 10 notices of canonicals? I know it's a small point, but it could potentially have a big difference. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | neooptic0