Does this site have a duplicate content issue?
-
Google WMT is showing me only 2 short meta descriptions under "HTML Improvements" but I believe http://www.customgia.com may have a content duplication issue. Numerous keywords are used repeatedly across many product descriptions. To make matters worse, every product page has a "Design It!" button that sends the user to a flash-based jewelry designer in which they can edit the product's appearance. I'm not sure if these "designer pages" are adding unnecessary and potentially damaging duplicate content but it's certainly a possibility.
There are many items on this site that are similar to one another but not the same. The product description tend to use the same phrases over and over again - words like crystal, Swarovski, beaded, design it, customize, change, pearl, glass beads, iridescent, pearl, drop earrings are used a lot. What I'm stuck on is whether or not I should be focusing on a content duplication issue as the primary SEO problem or if there is something bigger. Thank you for any assistance you can provide!
-
This is where things get a bit dicey - I'm not 100% sure that won't remove the main page, too (and how Google handles the trailing "/"). You might need a "/*" wild-card in the Robots.txt. Frankly, I'd ease into it with just one directory. These things never seem to work quite the way in practice that we all say they should in theory.
-
Okay, last question on this (I hope). As far as I can tell, Google's URL removal tool does not support the use of wildcards. And according to their removal requirements, I can't remove an entire directory unless that directory is already blocked in the robots.txt. So before I submit the removal request for: http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-necklace/, I have to add: Disallow: /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-necklace/ to robots.txt. Is this the right way to do this? And again, thanks for helping me with this.
-
Oh, sorry - yeah, this is why these questions can be dangerous in the scope of Q&A. If some of the pages in that virtual folder are main nav pages/links, then it's definitely going to look weird to block them (it's a mixed signal, at best). I'm not sure I fully understand the site structure, but my gut reaction is to leave those indexed. The wild-cards should work - the other option would be to give them each their own shorter URLs and not put them in the "/design-your-own-jewelry" folder, but that can be a ton of work, depending on how your site is built (plus, you'd have to 301-redirect the old URLs, which opens up a whole new mess).
-
Thank you for the excellent advice. We put the META NOINDEX tags into place this morning. The URL removal request is next but I have a slight change to what Everett outlined above.
The six designer pages that are accessible from the homepage: /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-necklace, /design-your-own-jewelry/simple-necklace, /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet, /design-your-own-jewelry/simple-bracelet, /design-your-own-jewelry/pendant-necklace, /design-your-own-jewelry/drop-earrings are not duplicates and the Moz crawl did not show them as duplicates. All the other designer pages are considered duplicates of each other or duplicates of one of these six pages. So we put INDEX, NOFOLLOW on these six pages to keep them indexed. I think the removal request should follow suit.
What's your opinion on placing a removal request for each of the following? - /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-necklace/, /design-your-own-jewelry/simple-necklace/, /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/, /design-your-own-jewelry/simple-bracelet/, /design-your-own-jewelry/pendant-necklace/, /design-your-own-jewelry/drop-earrings/. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this should remove all the designer pages from the index except the six that are accessible from the homepage, giving those six pages a chance to rank.
-
That sounds like a winning plan Dr. Pete, though I'd append 2.1 "Request removal of directory in Bing and Google webmaster tools".
-
I've had a lot of issues where, if pages were already indexed, Robots.txt did a poor job of removing them. Absolutely agree on the crawl budget issue and it's a whole lot easier to remove a folder in Robots.txt, but I've just had a bunch of odd problems with Robots.txt at large scale. If I actually had to do it on my own site, I'd probably:
(1) META NOINDEX the pages
(2) Monitor removal
(3) Once removal was progressing well (80%+), then add to Robots.txt
-
I agree with Dr. Pete here, though I think the easiest solution would be to simply block the entire /design-your-own-jewelry/* directory from being indexed using robots.txt and, to Dr. Pete's point, you'll want to remove that directory from the index in both Bing and Google webmaster tools, as discussed here:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/04/requesting-removal-of-content-from-our.html (see the section under "entire directory")
Something I think about with regard to robots.txt block Vs meta robots block is crawl budget. Google has to access a page to see the meta noindex tag, while a single disallow statement in the robots.txt file can save Googlebot the hassle of visiting potentially thousands of unnecessary pages.
If down the road you figure out a way to put custom content on those pages and want to try and rank for things like "Custom Garnet Pearl Bracelet" or "Design Your Own Beaded Bracelet" then I'd look into some of the other options discussed here. Until then I feel they would just be complicating something as simple as the need to remove very thin, mostly duplicate content from the index.
-
Each of these problems may have a unique solution, so it gets complicated. Regarding the "design your own" pages, I'm seeing over 5K of those URLs in the search index, and they do probably look very similar. Since these are not the core product pages, I'd strongly consider using META NOINDEX on them. I find that Robots.txt does not do a good job of blocking content that has already been indexed, in most cases. You can add the meta tag dynamically in your code, hopefully, so that just a few lines of code will serve all of these pages.
While these pages aren't "true" duplicates, they look similar enough that, at the scale of your site, they really are diluting your ability to rank. In extreme cases, if you're also serving up product variations, paginated search results, etc., you could even run into Panda issues. Whether or not this is your core problem, from an SEO perspective, cleaning it up can't hurt, and may make it easier to find other problems.
-
Even if the 'design' part was not flash the textual content is pretty much identical. There is no benefit for it to be indexed so canonical to the main directory URL would make sense. Then add some good text to those main pages.
Personally I would only use H1 for user experience rather than keywordy as they don't carry much weight.
-
Yes, the page http://www.customgia.com/fashion-beaded-jewelry/shop-for/beaded-bracelets/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 is a unique product page with a unique description. The designer page you referenced: http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 is also unique because it loads the jewelry design in the product page.
On every product page the "Design It!" button opens a flash-based designer page that let's the user edit that particular design. Unfortunately, the Moz crawler (and I assume Google) considers these pages duplicates of http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/ (or one of the other five jewelry patterns). The fact that every designer page loads a unique jewelry design does not seem to matter. The best (and most costly) solution, I suppose would be to change all the flash code to html but that isn't happening anytime soon.
The
tag on all the designer pages is either "Classic Bracelet", "Classic Necklace", "Simple Necklace", "Simple Bracelet", "Pendant Necklace" or "Drop Earrings" (depending on which pattern was used to create the design). Maybe changing the
to something like: Redesigning "Garnet Pearl Bracelet with Silver Hearts" would help tell Google these pages indeed differ from one another - but I think the content below the
will still be considered duplicate. If I use canonical tags on these pages, is there any point in creating dynamic
tags if it doesn't improve the user experience? Thanks again!
-
On a brief view:
http://www.customgia.com/fashion-beaded-jewelry/shop-for/beaded-bracelets/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 looks like it is a unique product page with potentially unique description? If so leave as is.
http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 looks a duplicate of http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/ so I would set rel canonical on any http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/CODE page pointing to ...design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/
I hope this helps.
-
Initially I thought canonical tags would work best. If we use them, should the canonical tag for the page: http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 point to the "parent" product page: http://www.customgia.com/fashion-beaded-jewelry/shop-for/beaded-bracelets/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 or do you think it should point to the appropriate designer page: http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/? - (The design that appears on these pages is based on the six products that appear on the homepage.)
The first solution, I suppose, would pass authority/PageRank to the "parent" product page. Whereas the second solution would pass authority/PageRank to one of the six designer pages. I'm not sure which is a better solution but I'm favoring pointing the pages to it's "parent" product page.
The priority is to fix the duplication content issue but a bump in ranking for any of these pages is obviously a bonus. Thanks for your help!
-
If you add rules to robots.txt that does not mean those directories will be removed from the index. You will also need to remove them in Webmaster Tools >> Google Index >> Remove URLs >> set Reason to Remove Directory.
Having said that why not use canonical tags on pages like /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 - http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
-
You are so welcome, and as I said, technical SEO is something I've been thrust into learning because of my current situation as an in-house SEO.
I think you may be on the right track, but there are other, very talented technical SEOs here who I would ask for a second on your decision. Perhaps Dr. Pete, Ian Lurie, or Everett Sizemore could chime in with a much more accurate response on the robots.txt
Good luck!
-
Thanks for the quick response. The Crawl Diagnostics report I just rec'd identified all the designer pages as duplicate content (these are the pages that load when the "Design It!" button is clicked).
The current robots.txt file does not disallow the designer pages. There are six different types of designer pages. Each of the 967 products loads one type of designer page, depending on the jewelry pattern the item was created with. Do you think the correct solution is to disallow these designer pages in the robot.txt file? I think the new robot.txt file should look like this:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /admin/
Disallow: /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/
Disallow: /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-necklace/
Disallow: /design-your-own-jewelry/drop-earrings/
Disallow: /design-your-own-jewelry/pendant-necklace/
Disallow: /design-your-own-jewelry/simple-bracelet/
Disallow: /design-your-own-jewelry/simple-necklace/Your help with this is very much appreciated.
-
First off, welcome!
Second, I would say don't worry at all about your call to action button. Every eCommerce site has call to action buttons on every page (i.e. "Add to Cart"). The pages that happen after that don't matter to search engines with one caveat...just make sure you have a properly configured Robots.txt file.
Third. If all of your product pages are indeed trying to capitalize on the same key terms....yes, you have a duplicate content problem. Don't wait for a tool to tell you what you already know in your heart!
Take some time, and prioritize and start to re-write you product pages to use a wider variety of keywords (particularly long-tail) that better describe the products you offer.
I 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
-
How best to deal with internal duplicate content
hi having an issue with a client site and internal duplicate content. The client has a custom cms and when they post new content it can appear, in full, at two different urls on the site. Short of getting the client to move cms, which they won't do, I am trying to find an easy fix that they could do themselves. ideally they would add a canonical on one of the versions but the cms does allow them to view posts in html view, also would be a lot if messing about wth posting the page and then going back to the cms and adding the tag. the cms is unable to auto generate this either. The content editors are copywriters not programmers. Would there be a solution using wmt for this? They have the skill level to be able to add a url in wmt so im thinking that a stop gap solution could be to noindex one of the versions using the option in webmaster tools. Ongoing we will consult developers about modifying the cms but budgets are limited so looking for a cheap and quick solution to help until the new year. anyone know of a way other than wmt to block Google from seeing duplicate content. We can block Google from folders because only a small percentage of the content in the folder would be internally duplicate. would be very grateful for any suggestions anyone could offer. thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | daedriccarl0 -
Duplicate content, which seems not to be duplicate :S
After crawling I am used to getting a lot of duplicate content messages in Moz, which are High Priority. I do not know what to do with them, since I believe we tackled all the issues. Main point being the advise to put in a link rel=canonical. An example of a page that accordeing to the report has a duplicate. I do not see how. Can you help with that? http://www.beat-it.nl/4y6hctr24x7wdmr-ml350-p-ic-procaresvc.html duplicate sample http://www.beat-it.nl/modu-hp-a5800-acm-for-64-256-aps.html
On-Page Optimization | | Raymo0 -
Duplicate content on partner site
I have a trade partner who will be using some of our content on their site. What's the best way to prevent any duplicate content issues? Their plan is to attribute the content to us using rel=author tagging. Would this be sufficient or should I request that they do something else too? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | ShearingsGroup0 -
Help With Duplicated Content
Hi Moz Community, I am having some issue's with duplicated content, i recently removed the .html from all of our links and moz has reported it as being duplicated. I have been reading up about Canonicalization and would to verify some details, when using the canonical tag would it be placed in the /mywebpage.html or /mywebpage file? I am having a hard time to sort this out so any help from you SEO experts would be great 🙂 I have also updated my htaccess file with the following Thanks in advance
On-Page Optimization | | finelinewebsolutions0 -
Duplicate Page Content Should we 301 - Best Practices?
What would be the best way to avoid a Duplicate Page Content for these type of pages. Our website generates user friendly urls, for each page..
On-Page Optimization | | 365ToursSafaris
So it is the same exact page, just both versions of the url work.. Example: http://www.safari365.com/about-africa/wildebeest-migration http://www.safari365.com/wildebeest-migration I don't think adding code to the page will work because its the same page for the incorrect and correct versions of the page. I don't think i can use the URL parameter setting because the version with /about-africa/ is the correct (correct as it it follows the site navigation) I was thinking of using the htaccess to redirect to the correct version.. Will that work ? and does it follow best Practices ? any other suggestions that would work better ?0 -
Index.php getting Duplicate page content.
I am quite new to SEO and have now got my first results. I am getting all my index.php pages returned as Duplicate page content. ie: blue-widgets/index.php
On-Page Optimization | | ivoryred
blue-widgets/ green-widgets/large/index.php
green-widgets/large/ How do solve this issue?0 -
How can I make it so that the various iterations (pages) do not come up as duplicate content ?
Hello, I wondered if somebody could give me some advice. The problem of various iterations of the clanedar page coming up as duplicate content. There is a large calendar on my site for events and each time the page is viewed it is seen as duplicate content . How can I make it so that the various iterations (pages) do not come up as duplicate content ? Regards
On-Page Optimization | | Tony14Aug0 -
Cross Domain Duplicate Content
Hi My client has a series of websies, one main website and several mini websites, articles are created and published daily and weekly, one will go on a the main website and the others on one, two, or three of the mini sites. To combat duplication, i only ever allow one article to be indexed (apply noindex to articles that i don't wanted indexed by google, so, if 3 sites have same article, 2 sites will have noindex tag added to head). I am not completely sure if this is ok, and whether there are any negative affects, apart from the articles tagged as noindex not being indexed. Are there any obvious issues? I am aware of the canonical link rel tag, and know that this can be used on the same domain, but can it be used cross domain, in place of the noindex tag? If so, is it exactly the same in structure as the 'same domain' canonical link rel tag? Thanks Matt
On-Page Optimization | | mattys0