Duplicate Content / Canonical Conundrum on E-Commerce Website
-
Hi all,
I’m looking for some expert advice on use of canonicals to resolve duplicate content for an e-Commerce site. I’ve used a generic example to explain the problem (I do not really run a candy shop).
SCENARIO
I run a candy shop website that sells candy dispensers and the candy that goes in them. I sell about 5,000 different models of candy dispensers and 10,000 different types of candy.
Much of the candy fits in more than one candy dispenser, and some candy dispensers fit exactly the same types of candy as others.
To make things easy for customers who need to fill up their candy dispensers, I provide a “candy finder” tool on my website which takes them through three steps:
1. Pick your candy dispenser brand (e.g. Haribo)
2. Pick your candy dispenser type (e.g. soft candy or hard candy)
3. Pick your candy dispenser model (e.g. S4000-A)
RESULT: The customer is then presented with a list of candy products that they can buy. on a URL like this:
Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-A
All of these steps are presented as HTML pages with followable/indexable links.
PROBLEM:
There is a duplicate content issue with the results pages. This is because a lot of the candy dispensers fit exactly the same candy (e.g. S4000-A, S4000-B and S4000-C). This means that the content on these pages are the basically same because the same candy products are listed. I’ll call these the “duplicate dispensers” E.g.
Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-A
Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-B
Candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-C
The page titles/headings change based on the dispenser model, but that’s not enough for the pages to be deemed unique by Moz. I want to drive organic traffic searches for the dispenser model candy keywords, but with duplicate content like this I’m guessing this is holding me back from any of these dispenser pages ranking.
SOLUTIONS
1. Write unique content for each of the duplicate dispenser pages: Manufacturers add or discontinue about 500 dispenser models each quarter and I don’t have the resources to keep on top of this content. I would also question the real value of this content to a user when it’s pretty obvious what the products on the page are.
2. Pick one duplicate dispenser to act as a rel=canonical and point all its duplicates at it. This doesn’t work as dispensers get discontinued so I run the risk of randomly losing my canonicals or them changing as models become unavailable.
3. Create a single page with all of the duplicate dispensers on, and canonical all of the individual duplicate pages to that page.
e.g. Canonical: candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series
Duplicates (which all point to canonical):
candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series?model=A
candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series?model=B
candy-shop.com/haribo/soft-candy/S4000-Series?model=C
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Option 3.
Anyone agree/disagree or have any other thoughts on how to solve this problem?
Thanks for reading.
-
Yes, adwords CR would give you that answer. The budget required depends on so many factors. But you can reduce the list of KW sampling the complete list.
But at least at macro level if you discuss that with someone from your client who knows his market and his consumers you should start getting an idea.
Logic+common sense is a good start.
I would analyze that before to start changing the website.
But if you do the opposite is not that you are going to break any porcelain. Duplicate content is not like a manual penalization, as far as I know, once you fix it and google crawl the new version the ranking is updated.
-
Thanks Max, your feedback makes complete sense.
KW volume analysis is a big job but managable, though I'm not even sure where I'd start with analysing whether people buy or not based on certain organic KWs. I'd probably have to set up Adwords campaigns and test conversion rates? Across a long tail of keywords that's going to be expensive to get statistically significant results.
Assuming that I don't have the resources to do that immediately, but that I do have a duplicate content issue (at least Moz seems to think so) am I better off "fixing" it with my proposed solution, or would you hold off until the KW analysis was done. This section of the site gets very little organic traffic at the moment as it's also a very competitive space and it doesn't have many inbound links so the risk of causing damage is low. I'm reluctant to start promoting this section and linking to it if I know there's a significant underlying duplicate content problem.
You're right about the URL too - it actually starts /Candy-Dispenser-Candies-Refills/*, I didn't think I'd get picked up on that!
Thanks,
George
-
As a rule of thumb I would put the category before the brand in the url structure. But...
In my opinion there's much more you should research before to take a decision.
Did you analyze your consumer behavior? What keywords are they going to type in google search box?
Are they really looking for your candy dispenser brands? Or by dispenser model names? Brand+model? Or they don't know much about candy dispensers manufacturer and models and just searching by some characteristics?
Don't be tricked by keywords volume, maybe there are a lot of searches for a brand or model, but what is their intention when searching by those terms? To buy? To find information planning to buy? To find information about a product they bought and learnt the name after making the purchase?
You should find out before to design the url structure.
And before to take a decision about how to mitigate the duplicate content risk.
What I mean is... There are characteristics of those dispensers you want to use to differentiate pages to target different keywords, and characteristics you can just put all in one page with “dispenser configurator”.
-
Same scenario on our site, we have a Product Finder search that returns x results based on user criteria. My solution canonical tag the search result pages to the root page.. in my case advanced_search.php.
My thought process is this, if somebody is searching for a very specific product, I absolutely don't want them hitting a random search page, rather I want them to see my product page. This means that the search page is likely crap in the rankings and that is by design.
There is nothing wrong with trying to capitalize on the search results, but isn't that what your categories and actual product pages are for?
Hope this helps,
Don
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
-
Duplicate without user-selected canonical excluded
We have pdf files uploaded in the media of wordpress and used in our website. As these pdfs are duplicate content of the original publishers, we have marked links to these pdf urls as nofollow. These pages are also disallowed in robots.txt Now, Google Search Console has shown these pages Excluded as "Duplicate without user-selected canonical" As it comes out we cannot use canonical tag with pdf pages so as to point to the original pdf source If we embed a pdf viewer in our website and fetch the pdfs by passing the urls of the original publisher, would the pdfs be still read as text by google and again create duplicate content issue? Another thing, when the pdf expires and is removed, it would lead to 404 error. If we direct our users to the third party website, then it would add up to our bounce rate. What should be the appropriate way to handle duplicate pdfs? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dailynaukri1 -
How to avoid duplicate content with e-commerce and multiple stores?
We are currently developing an e-commerce platform that will feed multiple stores. Each store will have its own domain and URL, but all stores will offer products that come from the same centralized database. That means all products will have the same image, description and title across all stores. What would be the best practice to avoid getting stores penalized for duplicate content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Agence_Bunji0 -
Parameter Strings & Duplicate Page Content
I'm managing a site that has thousands of pages due to all of the dynamic parameter strings that are being generated. It's a real estate listing site that allows people to create a listing, and is generating lots of new listings everyday. The Moz crawl report is continually flagging A LOT (25k+) of the site pages for duplicate content due to all of these parameter string URLs. Example: sitename.com/listings & sitename.com/listings/?addr=street name Do I really need to do anything about those pages? I have researched the topic quite a bit, but can't seem to find anything too concrete as to what the best course of action is. My original thinking was to add the rel=canonical tag to each of the main URLs that have parameters attached. I have also read that you can bypass that by telling Google what parameters to ignore in Webmaster tools. We want these listings to show up in search results, though, so I don't know if either of these options is ideal, since each would cause the listing pages (pages with parameter strings) to stop being indexed, right? Which is why I'm wondering if doing nothing at all will hurt the site? I should also mention that I originally recommend the rel=canonical option to the web developer, who has pushed back in saying that "search engines ignore parameter strings." Naturally, he doesn't want the extra work load of setting up the canonical tags, which I can understand, but I want to make sure I'm both giving him the most feasible option for implementation as well as the best option to fix the issues.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | garrettkite0 -
Does Google see this as duplicate content?
I'm working on a site that has too many pages in Google's index as shown in a simple count via a site search (example): site:http://www.mozquestionexample.com I ended up getting a full list of these pages and it shows pages that have been supposedly excluded from the index via GWT url parameters and/or canonicalization For instance, the list of indexed pages shows: 1. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff 2. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff?page=2 3. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?page=3 4. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?mq_source=q-and-a 5. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?type=productss&sort=1date Example #1 above is the one true page for search and the one that all the canonicals reference. Examples #2 and #3 shouldn't be in the index because the canonical points to url #1. Example #4 shouldn't be in the index, because it's just a source code that, again doesn't change the page and the canonical points to #1. Example #5 shouldn't be in the index because it's excluded in parameters as not affecting page content and the canonical is in place. Should I worry about these multiple urls for the same page and if so, what should I do about it? Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Circular Canonical/Redirect
My client's site has an issue (see below) and I'm wondering how much it could be affecting crawlability. Has anyone seen a major rankings bump after fixing something like this? 1. In each page the rel=canonical is pointing to the http version of the page while the http version is redirecting to the https version. Basically, a circular redirect-canonical loop is occurring.2. The sitemap.xml is also referring to the http version of the pages rather than the https.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | elenaroi0 -
Duplicate content, website authority and affiliates
We've got a dilemma at the moment with the content we supply to an affiliate. We currently supply the affiliate with our product database which includes everything about a product including the price, title, description and images. The affiliate then lists the products on their website and provides a Commission Junction link back to our ecommerce store which tracks any purchases with the affiliate getting a commission based on any sales via a cookie. This has been very successful for us in terms of sales but we've noticed a significant dip over the past year in ranking whilst the affiliate has achieved a peak...all eyes are pointing towards the Panda update. Whenever I type one of our 'uniquely written' product descriptions into Google, the affiliate website appears higher than ours suggesting Google has ranked them the authority. My question is, without writing unique content for the affiliate and changing the commission junction link. What would be the best option to be recognised as the authority of the content which we wrote in the first place? It always appears on our website first but Google seems to position the affiliate higher than us in the SERPS after a few weeks. The commission junction link is written like this: http://www.anrdoezrs.net/click-1428744-10475505?sid=shopp&url=http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/vango-calisto-600xl-tent.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gavinhoman0 -
Duplicate Content
Hi everyone, I have a TLD in the UK with a .co.uk and also the same site in Ireland (.ie). The only differences are the prices and different banners maybe. The .ie site pulls all of the content from the .co.uk domain. Is this classed as content duplication? I've had problems in the past in which Google struggles to index the website. At the moment the site appears completely fine in the UK SERPs but for Ireland I just have the Title and domain appearing in the SERPs, with no extended title or description because of the confusion I caused Google last time. Does anybody know a fix for this? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | royb0 -
Image optimization for e-commerce
Regarding image optimization for an ecommerce site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | triplelootz
In your "category" pages you list your products with a small thumbnails / miniature image. When the user clicks on the product name or on the thumnails, he lands on the product page with the real size product image. How do you optimize the thumbnail image? Do you use a different ALT? Is Google smart enough to index the real size image? On one hand the image located on the "product" page has lot more content around, is bigger & more interesting for both the user and Google. On the other hand the "category" page has more autority ( links) than the product page... To reformulate my questions: Do you think ALT tag is important for your thumbnail image on your category pages. Do you write different ALT tag for your thumbnail image ( on your category pages) & and your real size image (on your product page)? Which ALT tag / image do you think is the most interesting for Google? What do you think? Cheers, Ludo0