Noindexing Duplicate (non-unique) Content
-
When "noindex" is added to a page, does this ensure Google does not count page as part of their analysis of unique vs duplicate content ratio on a website? Example: I have a real estate business and I have noindex on MLS pages. However, is there a chance that even though Google does not index these pages, Google will still see those pages and think "ah, these are duplicate MLS pages, we are going to let those pages drag down value of entire site and lower ranking of even the unique pages". I like to just use "noindex, follow" on those MLS pages, but would it be safer to add pages to robots.txt as well and that should - in theory - increase likelihood Google will not see such MLS pages as duplicate content on my website?
On another note: I had these MLS pages indexed and 3-4 weeks ago added "noindex, follow". However, still all indexed and no signs Google is noindexing yet.....
-
Canonical pages don't have to be the same.
it will merge the content to look like one page.
Good luck
-
thx, Alan. I am already using re=next prev. However, that means all those paginated pages will still be indexed. I am adding the "noindex, follow" to page 2-n and only leaving page 1 indexed. Canonical: I don't think that will work. Each page in the series shows different properties, which means pages 1 - n are all different......
-
Ok if you use follow, that will be ok. but I would be looking at canonical or next previous first
-
I am trying to rank for those MLS duplicate alike pages, since that is what users want (they don't want my guide pages with lots of unique data, when they are searching "....for sale"). I will add unique data to page 1 of these MLS result pages. However, page 2-50 will NOT change (stay duplicate alike looking). If I have page 1-50 indexed, the unique content on page 1 may look like a drop in the ocean to G, and that is why I feel including "noindex, follow" on pages 2-50 may make sense.
-
That's correct.
you wont rank for duplicate pages, but unless most of your site is duplicate you wont be penalized
-
http://moz.com/blog/handling-duplicate-content-across-large-numbers-of-urls - that is Rand's whiteboard Friday a few weeks ago and I quote from the transcripts:
"So what happens, basically, is you get a page like this. I'm at BMO's Travel Gadgets. It's a great website where I can pick up all sorts of travel supplies and gear. The BMO camera 9000 is an interesting one because the camera's manufacturer requires that all websites which display the camera contain a lot of the same information. They want the manufacturer's description. They have specific photographs that they'd like you to use of the product. They might even have user reviews that come with those.
Because of this, a lot of the folks, a lot of the e-commerce sites who post this content find that they're getting trapped in duplicate content filters. Google is not identifying their content as being particularly unique. So they're sort of getting relegated to the back of the index, not ranking particularly well. They may even experience problems like Google Panda, which identifies a lot of this content and says, "Gosh, we've seen this all over the web and thousands of their pages, because they have thousands of products, are all exactly the same as thousands of other websites' other products."
-
There is nothing wrong with having duplicate content. It becomes a problem when you have a site that is all or almost all duplicate or thin content.
Having a page that is on every other competitors site will not harm you, you just may not rank for it.
but no indexing can cause lose of link juice as all links pointing to non indexed pages waste there link juice. Using noindex,follow will return most of this, but still there in no need to no-index
-
http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu-condos/ - this is an "MLS result page". That URL will soon have some statistics and it will be unique (I will include in index). All the paginated pages (2 to n) hardly has any unique content. It is great layout, users love it (ADWords campaign average user spends 9min and views 16 pages on site), but since it is MLS listings (shared amongst thousands of Realtors) Google will see "ah, these are duplicate pages, nothing unique". That is why I plan to index page 1 (the URL I list) but all paginated pages like: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu-condos/page-2) I will keep as "noindex, follow". Also, I want to rank for this URL: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-condos/ which is a sub-category of the first URL and 100% of the content is exactly the same as the 1st URL. So, I will focus on indexing just the 1st page and not the paginated pages. Unfortunately, G cannot see value in layout and design and I can see how keeping all pages indexed could hurt my site.
Would be happy to hear your thoughts on this. I launched site 4 months ago, more unique and quality content than 99% of other firms I am up against, yet nothing happens ranking wise yet. I suspect all these MLS pages is the issue. Time will show!
-
If you no index, I don't think Next Previous will have any affect.
If they are different then and if the keywords are all important why no-index?
-
Thx ,Philip. I am using already, but I thought adding "noindex, follow" to those paginated pages (on top of rel=next prev") will increase likelihood G will NOT see all those MLS result pages as a bunch of duplicate content. Page 1 may look thin, but with some statistical data I will soon include it is unique and that uniqueness may offset lack of indexed MLS result pages.....not sure if my reasoning is sound. Would be happy to hear if you feel differently
-
Sounds like you should actually be using rel=next and rel=prev.
More info here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
-
Hi Alan, thx for your comment. Let me give you an example and if you have a though that's be great:
- Condos on Island: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu-condos/
- Condos in City: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-condos/
- Condos in Region: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro-condos/
Properties on the result page for 3) are all in 2) and all properties within 2) is within 1). Furthermore, for each of those URL, the paginated pages (2 to n) are all different, since each property is different, so using canonical tags would not be accurate. 1 + 2 + 3 are all important keywords.
Here is what I am planning: add some unique content to the first page in the series for each of those URL and include just the 1st page in the serious to the index, but pages 2 to n I will keep "noindex, follow" on. Argument could be "your MLS result pages will look too thin and not rank" but the other way of looking at it is "with potentially 500 or more properties on each URL, a bit of stats on page 1 will not offset all the MLS duplicate data, so even though the page may look thin, only indexing page 1 is best way forward".
-
Remember that if you no-index pages, any link you have on your site pointing to those pages is wasting its link juice.
This looks like a job for Canonical tag
-
lol - good answer Philip. I hear you. What makes it difficult is the lack of crystal clear guidelines from search engines....it is almost like they don't know themselves and each case is sort of on a "what feels right" basis.....
-
Good find. I've never seen this part of the help section. Their resonating reason behind all of the examples seems to be "You don’t need to manually remove URLs; they will drop out naturally over time."
I have never had an issue, nor have I ever heard of anyone having an issue, removing URLs with the Removal Tool. I guess if you don't feel safe doing it, you can wait for Google's crawler to catch up, although it could take over a month. If you're comfortable waiting it out, have no reasons to rush it, AND feel like playing it super safe... you can disregard everything I've said
We all learn something new every day!
-
based on Google's own guidelines it appears to be a bad idea to use the removal tool under normal circumstances (which I believe my site falls under): https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1269119
It starts with: "The URL removal tool is intended for pages that urgently need to be removed—for example, if they contain confidential data that was accidentally exposed. Using the tool for other purposes may cause problems for your site."
-
thx, Philip. Most helpful. I will get on it
-
Yes. It will remove /page-52 and EVERYTHING that exists in /oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/. It will also remove everything that exists in /page-52/ (if anything). It trickles down as far as the folders in that directory will go.
**Go to Google search and type this in: **site:honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/
That will show you everything that's going to be removed from the index.
-
Yep, you got it.
You can think of it exactly like Windows folders, if that helps you stay focused. If you have C:\Website\folder1 and C:\Website\folder12. "noindexing" \folder1\ would leave \folder12\ alone because they're not in the same directory.
-
for some MLS result pages I have a BUNCH of pages and I want to remove from index with 1 click as opposed to having to include each paginated page. Example: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/page-52 I simply include"/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/" and that will ALSO remove from index this page: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/page-52 - is that correct?
-
removing directory "/oahu/waianae-makaha-condos/" will NOT remove "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/" because the silo "waianae-makaha" and "waianae-makaha-condos" are different.
HOWEVER,
removing directory " /oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/" will remove "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/page-2" because they share this silo "waianae-makaha"Is that correctly understood?
-
Yep. Just last week I had an entire website deindexed (on purpose, it's a staging website) by entering just / into the box and selecting directory. By the next morning the entire website was gone from the index
It works for folders/directories too. I've used it many times.
-
so I will remove directory for "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/" and that will ensure removal of "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/page-2" as well?
-
thx, Philip. So you are saying if I use the directory option that will ensure the paginated pages will also be taken out of the index like this page: /oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/page-2
-
I'm not 100% sure Google will understand you if you leave off the slashes. I've always added them and have never had a problem, so you want to to type: /oahu/waianae-makaha-condos/
Typing that would NOT include the neighborhood URL, in your example. It will only remove everything that exists in the /waianae-makaha-condos/ folder (including that main category page itself).
edit >> To remove the neighborhood URL and everything in that folder as well, type /oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/ and select the option for "directory".
edit #2 >> I just want to add that you should be very careful with this. You don't want to use the directory option unless you're 100% sure there's nothing in that directory that you want to stay indexed.
-
thx. I have a URL like this for a REGION: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/waianae-makaha-condos/ and for a "NEIGHBORHOOD" I have this: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/
As you can see Region has "waianae-makaha-condos" directory, whereas the Neighborhood has "waianae-makaha" without the "condos" for that region directory part.
Question: when I go to GWT and remove can I simply type "oahu/waianae-makaha-condos" and select the directory option and that will ALSO exclude the neighborhood URL? OR, since the region part in the URL within the neighborhood URL is different I have to submit individually?
-
Yep! After you remove the URL or directory of URLs, there is a "Reinclude" button you can get to. You just need to switch your "Show:" view so it shows URLs removed. The default is to show URLs PENDING removal. Once they're removed, they will disappear from that view.
-
good one, Philip. Last BIG question: if I remove URL's from GWT, is it possible to "unremove" without issue? I am planning to index some of these MLS pages in the future when I have more unique content on.
-
When "noindex" is added to a page, does this ensure Google does not count page as part of their analysis of unique vs duplicate content ratio on a website? Yes, that will tell Google that you understand the pages don't belong in the index. They will not penalize your site for duplicate content if you're explicitly telling Google to noindex them.
Is there a chance that even though Google does not index these pages, Google will still see those pages and think "ah, these are duplicate MLS pages, we are going to let those pages drag down value of entire site and lower ranking of even the unique pages". No, there's no chance these will hurt you if they're set to noindex. That is exactly what the noindex tag is for. You're doing what Google wants you to do.
I like to just use "noindex, follow" on those MLS pages, but would it be safer to add pages to robots.txt as well and that should - in theory - increase likelihood Google will not see such MLS pages as duplicate content on my website? You could add them to your robots.txt but that won't increase your likelihood of Google not penalizing you because there is already no worry about being penalized for pages not being indexed.
On another note: I had these MLS pages indexed and 3-4 weeks ago added "noindex, follow". However, still all indexed and no signs Google is noindexing yet.....
Donna's advice is perfect here. Use the Remove URLs tool. Every time I've used the tool, Google has removed the URLs from the index in less than 12-24 hours. I of course made sure to have a noindex tag in place first. Just make sure you enter everything AFTER the TLD (.com, .net, etc) and nothing before it. Example: You'd want to ask Google to remove /mls/listing122 but not example.com/mls/listing122. The ladder will not work properly because Google automatically adds "example.com" to it (they just don't make this very clear). -
thx, Donna. My question was mainly around whether Google will NOT consider MLS pages as duplicate content when I place the "noindex" on. We can all guess, but does anyone have anything concrete on this, to make me understand reality of this. Can we with 90% certainty say "yes, if you place noindex on a duplicate content page, then Google will not consider that duplicate content, hence it will not count towards how Google views duplicate vs unique site content". This is the big question: If we are left in uncertainty, then only way forward may be to password protect such pages and not offer users without creating an account.....
Removal on GWT: I plan to index some of these MLS pages in the future (when I get more unique content on them) and I am concerned if once submitted to GWT for removal, then it is tough to get such pages indexed again.
-
Hi khi5,
I think excluding those MLS listings from your site using the robots.txt file would be over kill.
As I'm sure you well know, Google does what it wants. I think tagging the pages you don't want indexed with "noindex follow" AND adding them to the robots.txt file doesn't make the likelihood that Google will respect your wishes any higher. You might want to consider canonicalizing them though, so links to and bookmarks and shares of said pages get credited to your site.
As to how long it takes for Google to deindex said pages, it can take a very long time. In my experience, "a very long time" can run 6-8 months. You do have the option however, of using Google Webmaster Tools > Google Index > Remove URLs to ask to have them deindexed faster. Again, no guarantees that Google will do as you ask, but I've found them to be pretty responsive when I use the tool.
I'd love to hear if anyone else feels differently.
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
-
Magento products and eBay - duplicate content risk?
Hi, We are selling about 1000 sticker products in our online store and would like to expand a large part of our products lineup to eBay as well. There are pretty good modules for this as I've heard. I'm just wondering if there will be duplicate content problems if I sync the products between Magento and eBay and they get uploaded to eBay with identical titles, descriptions and images? What's the workaround in this case? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | speedbird12290 -
Handling duplicate content, whilst making both rank well
Hey MOZperts, I run a marketplace called Zibbet.com and we have 1000s of individual stores within our marketplace. We are about to launch a new initiative giving all sellers their own stand-alone websites. URL structure:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | relientmark
Marketplace URL: http://www.zibbet.com/pillowlink
Stand-alone site URL: http://pillowlink.zibbet.com (doesn't work yet) Essentially, their stand-alone website is a duplicate of their marketplace store. Same items (item title, description), same seller bios, same shop introduction content etc but it just has a different layout. You can scroll down and see a preview of the different pages (if that helps you visualize what we're doing), here. My Questions: My desire is for both the sellers marketplace store and their stand-alone website to have good rankings in the SERPS. Is this possible? Do we need to add any tags (e.g. "rel=canonical") to one of these so that we're not penalized for duplicate content? If so, which one? Can we just change the meta data structure of the stand-alone websites to skirt around the duplicate content issue? Keen to hear your thoughts and if you have any suggestions for how we can handle this best. Thanks in advance!0 -
Duplicate content on yearly product models.
TL;DR - Is creating a page that has 80% of duplicated content from the past year's product model where 20% is about the new model changes going to be detrimental to duplicate content issues. Is there a better way to update minor yearly model changes and not have duplicated content? Full Question - We create landing pages for yearly products. Some years the models change drastically and other years there are only a few minor changes. The years where the product features change significantly is not an issue, it's when there isn't much of a change to the product description & I want to still rank on the new year searches. Since I don't want duplicate content by just adding the last year's model content to a new page and just changing the year (2013 to 2014) because there isn't much change with the model, I thought perhaps we could write a small paragraph describing the changes & then including the last year's description of the product. Since 80% of the content on the page will be duplicated from the last year's model, how detrimental do you think this would be for a duplicate content issue? The reason I'm leaving the old model up is to maintain the authority that page has and to still rank on the old model which is still sold. Does anyone else have any other better idea other than re-writing the same information over again in a different way with the few minor changes to the product added in.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DCochrane0 -
Avoiding Duplicate Content with Used Car Listings Database: Robots.txt vs Noindex vs Hash URLs (Help!)
Hi Guys, We have developed a plugin that allows us to display used vehicle listings from a centralized, third-party database. The functionality works similar to autotrader.com or cargurus.com, and there are two primary components: 1. Vehicle Listings Pages: this is the page where the user can use various filters to narrow the vehicle listings to find the vehicle they want.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | browndoginteractive
2. Vehicle Details Pages: this is the page where the user actually views the details about said vehicle. It is served up via Ajax, in a dialog box on the Vehicle Listings Pages. Example functionality: http://screencast.com/t/kArKm4tBo The Vehicle Listings pages (#1), we do want indexed and to rank. These pages have additional content besides the vehicle listings themselves, and those results are randomized or sliced/diced in different and unique ways. They're also updated twice per day. We do not want to index #2, the Vehicle Details pages, as these pages appear and disappear all of the time, based on dealer inventory, and don't have much value in the SERPs. Additionally, other sites such as autotrader.com, Yahoo Autos, and others draw from this same database, so we're worried about duplicate content. For instance, entering a snippet of dealer-provided content for one specific listing that Google indexed yielded 8,200+ results: Example Google query. We did not originally think that Google would even be able to index these pages, as they are served up via Ajax. However, it seems we were wrong, as Google has already begun indexing them. Not only is duplicate content an issue, but these pages are not meant for visitors to navigate to directly! If a user were to navigate to the url directly, from the SERPs, they would see a page that isn't styled right. Now we have to determine the right solution to keep these pages out of the index: robots.txt, noindex meta tags, or hash (#) internal links. Robots.txt Advantages: Super easy to implement Conserves crawl budget for large sites Ensures crawler doesn't get stuck. After all, if our website only has 500 pages that we really want indexed and ranked, and vehicle details pages constitute another 1,000,000,000 pages, it doesn't seem to make sense to make Googlebot crawl all of those pages. Robots.txt Disadvantages: Doesn't prevent pages from being indexed, as we've seen, probably because there are internal links to these pages. We could nofollow these internal links, thereby minimizing indexation, but this would lead to each 10-25 noindex internal links on each Vehicle Listings page (will Google think we're pagerank sculpting?) Noindex Advantages: Does prevent vehicle details pages from being indexed Allows ALL pages to be crawled (advantage?) Noindex Disadvantages: Difficult to implement (vehicle details pages are served using ajax, so they have no tag. Solution would have to involve X-Robots-Tag HTTP header and Apache, sending a noindex tag based on querystring variables, similar to this stackoverflow solution. This means the plugin functionality is no longer self-contained, and some hosts may not allow these types of Apache rewrites (as I understand it) Forces (or rather allows) Googlebot to crawl hundreds of thousands of noindex pages. I say "force" because of the crawl budget required. Crawler could get stuck/lost in so many pages, and my not like crawling a site with 1,000,000,000 pages, 99.9% of which are noindexed. Cannot be used in conjunction with robots.txt. After all, crawler never reads noindex meta tag if blocked by robots.txt Hash (#) URL Advantages: By using for links on Vehicle Listing pages to Vehicle Details pages (such as "Contact Seller" buttons), coupled with Javascript, crawler won't be able to follow/crawl these links. Best of both worlds: crawl budget isn't overtaxed by thousands of noindex pages, and internal links used to index robots.txt-disallowed pages are gone. Accomplishes same thing as "nofollowing" these links, but without looking like pagerank sculpting (?) Does not require complex Apache stuff Hash (#) URL Disdvantages: Is Google suspicious of sites with (some) internal links structured like this, since they can't crawl/follow them? Initially, we implemented robots.txt--the "sledgehammer solution." We figured that we'd have a happier crawler this way, as it wouldn't have to crawl zillions of partially duplicate vehicle details pages, and we wanted it to be like these pages didn't even exist. However, Google seems to be indexing many of these pages anyway, probably based on internal links pointing to them. We could nofollow the links pointing to these pages, but we don't want it to look like we're pagerank sculpting or something like that. If we implement noindex on these pages (and doing so is a difficult task itself), then we will be certain these pages aren't indexed. However, to do so we will have to remove the robots.txt disallowal, in order to let the crawler read the noindex tag on these pages. Intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me to make googlebot crawl zillions of vehicle details pages, all of which are noindexed, and it could easily get stuck/lost/etc. It seems like a waste of resources, and in some shadowy way bad for SEO. My developers are pushing for the third solution: using the hash URLs. This works on all hosts and keeps all functionality in the plugin self-contained (unlike noindex), and conserves crawl budget while keeping vehicle details page out of the index (unlike robots.txt). But I don't want Google to slap us 6-12 months from now because it doesn't like links like these (). Any thoughts or advice you guys have would be hugely appreciated, as I've been going in circles, circles, circles on this for a couple of days now. Also, I can provide a test site URL if you'd like to see the functionality in action.0 -
Duplicate Content in News Section
Our clients site is in the hunting niche. According to webmaster tools there are over 32,000 indexed pages. In the new section that are 300-400 news posts where over the course of a about 5 years they manually copied relevant Press Releases from different state natural resources websites (ex. http://gfp.sd.gov/news/default.aspx). This content is relevant to the site visitors but it is not unique. We have since begun posting unique new posts but I am wondering if anything should be done with these old news posts that aren't unique? Should I use the rel="canonical tag or noindex tag for each of these pages? Or do you have another suggestion?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rise10 -
Duplicate Content Question
My understanding of duplicate content is that if two pages are identical, Google selects one for it's results... I have a client that is literally sharing content real-time with a partner...the page content is identical for both sites, and if you update one page, teh otehr is updated automatically. Obviously this is a clear cut case for canonical link tags, but I'm cuious about something: Both sites seem to show up in search results but for different keywords...I would think one domain would simply win out over the other, but Google seems to show both sites in results. Any idea why? Also, could this duplicate content issue be hurting visibility for both sites? In other words, can I expect a boost in rankings with the canonical tags in place? Or will rankings remain the same?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AmyLB0 -
How much (%) of the content of a page is considered too much duplication?
Google is not fond of duplication, I have been very kindly told. So how much would you suggest is too much?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | simonberenyi0 -
Load balancing - duplicate content?
Our site switches between www1 and www2 depending on the server load, so (the way I understand it at least) we have two versions of the site. My question is whether the search engines will consider this as duplicate content, and if so, what sort of impact can this have on our SEO efforts? I don't think we've been penalised, (we're still ranking) but our rankings probably aren't as strong as they should be. The SERPs show a mixture of www1 and www2 content when I do a branded search. Also, when I try to use any SEO tools that involve a site crawl I usually encounter problems. Any help is much appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHillfd0