Duplication, pagination and the canonical
-
Hi all, and thank you in advance for your assistance.
We have an issue of paginated pages being seen as duplicates by pro.moz crawlers.
The paginated pages do have duplicated by content, but are not duplicates of each other. Rather they pull through a summary of the product descriptions from other landing pages on the site.
I was planing to use rel=canonical to deal with them, however I am concerned as the paginated pages are not identical to each other, but do feature their own set of duplicate content!
We have a similar issue with pages that are not paginated but feature tabs that alter the URL parameters like so:
?st=BlueWidgets
?st=RedSocks
?st=Offers
These are being seen as duplicates of the main URL, and again all feature duplicate content pulled from elsewhere in the site, but are not duplicates of each other. Would a canonical tag be suitable here?
Many Thanks
-
The rel next prev is not for duplicated content - it just shows google how the parts relate to the whole.
An alternative to the rel next prev is the "Classic Pagination for SEO" that uses noindex another article by Adam
http://searchengineland.com/the-latest-greatest-on-seo-pagination-114284
If you have a duplicate issue, this would solve it as you would noindex all the duplicate pages.
What you need to do (and I can't do this for you), is to look at all the crawl paths that you are providing Google. As I mention above, you are not doing any favors to Google or to your site when you show Google an infinite number of paths to get to the same content. It just wastes Google's time and you don't want to do that when Google also has to crawl the rest of the internet. If you solve this issue, you will solve your duplicate issue.
AJ Kohn just posted an article on the concept of crawl budget that talks about this. I think the article is quite good and it explains why we need to look at all the topics of noindex, nofollow, robots, canonical and rel next prev http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/crawl-optimization
-
Thanks CleverPhD,
That's a very interesting read by Adam Audette too, thanks.
I should say that there's no internal search, each tab has a series of duplicated 'blurbs' taken from the product's unique landing page, while the body copy remains the same across the slight variations in the URL. So with:
example.com/example/?st=BlueWidgets
example.com/example/?st=RedSocks
all of these will feature the same body copy, while the last two will have a series of small descriptions from other landing pages in the site. Would the canonical tag be appropriate in this case? We only need to index 'example.com/example'.
Also, does the rel next prev take into account duplicate content? We want only the main URL indexed as all the paginated pages feature duplicate content, there is no view all page however.
Many thanks
-
If I am understanding the question - I think pulling in some body copy from each search result (and not just the whole page) would be fine. I think Google will see that this is a search result and that you are pointing to other pages. You are probably going to pull in text from the title too. This is common practice in search results - heck Google does it!
If you are still concerned about the pulled in descriptions, your option is to setup the system to have an alternate description for each page. Use the alternate description when you pull it into your main page. It is more work, but it will eliminate this issue.
Separately, paginated pages no longer need to be canonicaled to the index page. You can use rel next and prev.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en
It explains to Google the relationship between P1 and P2,3,4,5,n etc.
Beyond that, you need to watch that you do not get into too many paginated pages to get to the exact same product pages. Lets say you had 1,000 widgets that were blue, red and green and also were Free, Expensive or Cheap. You would have several sets of paginated pages (one set for Blue, one for Red, Green, Free, Cheap, Expensive, one for Red and Expensive) etc. It gets to be a little crazy as they all lead to the same set of widget product pages. You need to manage how to have Google crawl all that and not have your Paginated Category pages look like duplicated. Adam Audette writes great stuff on this. Look here for things to consider
http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/site-search-dynamic-content-and-seo/01032013/
-
Thank you Robert, and for the helpful link.
You did read my question correctly, however I failed to ask it ask entirely correctly. Just to complicate matters, I neglected to mention that there is body copy on each page, which technically will be duplicated.
It sits above the tabs and does not change, while the tabbed pages - under new URL parameters - pull in a sentence or two of product description from elsewhere (a unique landing page).
So,
?st=BlueWidgets
?st=RedSocks
?st=Offers
will all feature the same body copy and different duplicate content. For obvious reasons, we only want the SE to index the main URL.
Any ideas?
Thanks again
-
Hi
It doesn't sound like rel=canonical is the solution, as each one of your pages might feature multiple pieces of content from various other parts of your website (if I've read your question correctly) - so which would be the canonical version of the page?
You could use Parameter Handling in Webmaster Tools to ensure Google knows what to do with your various parameters. Moz doesn't matter here, as long as Search Engines are aware of how to handle your pages correctly.
There's a good overview here.
I hope that's helpful
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
-
Unsolved Duplicate Content
We have multiple collections being flagged as duplicate content - but I can't find where these duplications are coming from? The duplicate content has no introductory text, and no meta description. Please see examples:- This is the correct collection page:-
Technical SEO | | Caroline_Ardmoor
https://www.ardmoor.co.uk/collections/deerhunter This is the incorrect collection page:-
https://www.ardmoor.co.uk/collections/vendors How do I stop this incorrect page from showing?0 -
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Canonical tag not working
I have a weebly site and I put the canonical tag in the header code but the moz crawler still says that I'm missing the canonical tag. Any tips?
Technical SEO | | ctpolarbears0 -
Despite canonical duplicate content in WMT
Hi, 2 weeks ago we've made big changes in title and meta descriptions. To solve the missing title and descriptions. Also set the right canonical. Now i see that in WMT despite the canonical it shows duplicates in meta descriptions and titles. i've setup the canonical like this:
Technical SEO | | Leonie-Kramer
1. url: www.domainname.com/category/listing-family/productname
2. url: www.domainname.com/category/listing-family/productname-more-info The canonical on both pages is like this: I'm aware of creating duplicate titles and descriptions, caused by the cms we use and also caused by wrong structure of category/products (we'll solve that nest year) that's why i wanted the canonical, but now it's not going any better, did i do something wrong with the canonical?0 -
Pagination/Crawl Errors
Hi, Ive only just joined SEO moz and after they crawled my site they came up with 3600 crawl errors mostly being duplicate content and duplicate urls. After researching this it soon became clear it was due to on page pagination and after speaking with Abe from SEO mozhe advised me to take action by getting our developers to implement rel=”next” & rel=”prev” to review. soon after our developers implemented this code ( I have no understanding of this what so ever) 90% of my keywords I had been ranking for in the top 10 have dropped out the top 50! Can anyone explain this or help me with this? Thanks Andy
Technical SEO | | beck3980 -
Techniques for diagnosing duplicate content
Buonjourno from Wetherby UK 🙂 Diagnosing duplicate content is a classic SEO skill but I'm curious to know what techniques other people use. Personally i use webmaster tools as illustrated here: http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/zymurgy_bucket/webmaster-tools-duplicate.jpg but what other techniques are effective? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | Nightwing
David0 -
How to correct a google canonical issue?
So when I initially launched my website I had an issue where I didn't properly set my canonical tags and all my pages got crawled. Now in looking at the search engine results I see a number of the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged to the correct page showing up in the results. What is the best way to correct this issue with google? Also I noticed that while initially I was ranking well for the main pages, now those results have disappeared entirely and deeper in the rankings I am finding the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged. Please Help.
Technical SEO | | jackaveli0 -
Canonical URLs and screen scraping
So a little question here. I was looking into a module to help implement canonical URLs on a certain CMS and I came a cross a snarky comment about relative vs. absolute URLs being used. This person was insistent that relative URLs are fine and absolute URLs are only for people who don't know what they are doing. My question is, if using relative URLs, doesn't it make it easier to have your content scraped? After all, if you do get your content scraped at least it would point back to your site if using absolute URLs, right? Am I missing something or is my thinking OK on this? Any feedback is much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | friendlymachine0