Duplicate content - "Same" profile-information
-
Hi,
I own a casting website with lots of profiles. Some of these profiles only typed in their firstname, email and age, when they registered on the site, and they haven't added more information ever since.
From Crawl Diagnostics, I can see that there is "lots" of these profiles, which looks exactly the same (only showing age and firstname), allthought they are not the same.
I could add which day the profile were created on the site, to maybe avoid these "duplications". The email will always be hidden.
Or, how big an issue is this? Crawl Diagnostics tells me, that there is around 200 of these, and they are "marked" as High Priority.
Any ideas on what to do?
/Kasper
-
So, just continued on SEO and run into this issue I never really "fixed".
Any ideas?
I'm actually thinking of using a "no-follow" or exclude all these profile automatically from Google.
Mostly because, they are not really adding any value.
I mean, my site is a castingsite, and if the profile don't have picture, or a description or anything, then they are pretty much worthless for the site.
What do you guys think?
-
Matt > It's only the mostly-blank, profiles that come up.
The "issue" is, that there is some profiles with same name and age, that haven't filled out more information.
-
Curious, Kasper—is it only the mostly-blank profiles that come up as duplicate content? Or do filled out profiles get flagged, too?
-
No, I've programmed the back-end myself.
I know that www.site.com/profile/name would be better thou, but it's not possible at the moment.
-
Are you using a cms?
-
Donald, thanks for your quick reply.
Yes, well they have a different url like this www.site.dk/profile.asp?id=number.
Well, actually these profiles, with no data filled out, should'nt be indexed, so I could add a no-index on them.
But, the issue there would be, that whenever a new profile is created, then they would as default be no-index.
Most of the profiles, update their profile with more information right away thou, so the "in-index" would disappear in the HTML code within hours or a day or so.
-
Each profile should have a different URL correct? Then you can add information to your profiles that would always be different or make some field mandatory like last name or address before the profile can be created. Are the profiles supposed to be searchable from search engines? If not no-index them.
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
-
Positioning rethinking regarding triplicate keyword "landing pages"
Hi! We're rethinking our website and we have some doubts on how it would affect our positioning. Our main keyword right now is "casas de madera". Positioning by this keyword we have three different "main" pages: Our home (http://www.canexel.es/) 2)SEO landing page (http://www.canexel.es/casas-de-madera/) 3)A blog section (http://www.canexel.es/blog/casas-de-madera/) We thought at first about changing our home main keyword, but this option has been ruled out since is the keyword that gives us the most visits and changing it would result on a rebrandindg strategy we are not sure we want to pursue. We're thinking about a canonical from the landing page (2) to our Home (1) and making it disappear from our website. Regarding our blog we've thought about removing the blog section. We've thought about a 301 from every post to a new category or just deleting the category "casas de madera" from our site and telling google not to index the section (3) but continue indexing the posts we already have published under this category. Would any of these harm our positioning? And, if so, is ther any other steps you wolud recomend us taking? In this same topic, we're about to create a SEM Landing page for this same keyword. This page will be very visual and with little text. We are not sure if we should have a canonical pointing from it to our home or just not indexing the new SEM landing page. What would you recommend? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Canexel0 -
Many have stolen our content. Rewrite vs. DMCA content removal?
Hello, We own a medical tourism website and many other sites have stolen (copied and pasted) our content. Our content is more than 2 years old, so we thought we could rewrite the content - but Which is a more wiser decision from you guys' experience? Archive our current content at a different URL and upload a fresh content in the current URL Claim our originality to Google and ask the stolen sites to remove our content. Thank you and appreciate your time.
On-Page Optimization | | joony0 -
Duplicate content from pagination and categories found in multiple locations
Hey Moz community, Really need help resolving duplicate content issues for an eCommerce utilizing Magento. We have duplicate content issues with category pagination and categories found in multiple locations. here's an example: "www.website.com/style/sequin-dresses" is also found at "www.website.com/features/sequin-dresses" *to resolve this issue do we just need to place a canonical tag on "www.website.com/features/sequin-dresses" pointing to "www.website.com/style/sequin-dresses"? In addition, the category "Sequin Dresses" also has pagination. to resolve duplicate content issues with pagination do we need to implement a rel=next/prev tag? (we do not have a view-all due to the amount of products featured) If anyone has experience with this or any insights on how to resolve these issues please let me know. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | LeapOfBelief0 -
Boat broker - issues with duplicate content and indexing search results
Hello, I have read a lot about optimising product pages and not indexing search results or category pages as ideally a person should be directed straight to a product page. I am interested in how best to approach a site that is listing second hand products for sale - essentially a marketplace of second hand goods (in my case, www.boatshed.com - international boat brokers). For example, we currently have 5 Colvic Sailer 26 boats for sale across the world - that is 5 boats of the same make and model but differing years, locations, sellers and prices. My concern is with search results and 'category' pages. Unlike typical e-commerce sites, when someone searches for a 'Colvic sailer 26 for sale' I want them to go to a search results style page as it is more useful for them to see a list of boats than one random one that Google decides is most important (or possibly one it can match by location). Currently we have 3 different URL types to show search results style pages (i.e. paginated lists of boats that include name, image and short description):
On-Page Optimization | | pbscreative
manufacturer URL's e.g. http://www.boatshed.com/colvic-manufacturer-145.html
category URL's e.g. barges http://www.boatshed.com/barges-category-55.html
and normal search results e.g. dosearch.php?form_boattype_textbox=&.... I have noindexed the search results pages but our category and manufacturer URLs show up in search results and ultimately these are pages I want people to land on. I am however getting duplicate content warnings in Moz. Most boats are in several categories and all will come up on 1 manufacturer and one manufacturer and model page. Both sets of URL's are in my opinion needed; lots of users search for exact makes / models and lots of users just search for the type of boat e.g. 'barge for sale' so both sets of landing pages are useful. Any suggestions or thoughts greatly appreciated Thanks Ben0 -
How to determine what is causing an "F" on-page Report ?
I have a number of pages that I believe are optimized just like other pages that have "A" reports, but they get Fs. How can I specifically drill down and discover the cause of the F?
On-Page Optimization | | enotes0 -
Dealing with thin content/95% duplicate content - canonical vs 301 vs noindex
My client's got 14 physical locations around the country but has a webpage for each "service area" they operate in. They have a Croydon location. But a separate page for London, Croydon, Essex, Luton, Stevenage and many other places (areas near Croydon) that the Croydon location serves. Each of these pages is a near duplicate of the Croydon page with the word Croydon swapped for the area. I'm told this was a SEO tactic circa 2001. Obviously this is an issue. So the question - should I 301 redirect each of the links to the Croydon page? Or (what I believe to be the best answer) set a rel=canonical tag on the duplicate pages). Creating "real and meaningful content" on each page isn't quite an option, sorry!
On-Page Optimization | | JamesFx0 -
Replacing "_" with "-" in url, results in new url?
We ran SEOmoz's "On-Page Optimization" tool on a url which contains the character "_". According to the tool: "Characters which are less commonly used in URLs may cause problems with accessibility, interpretation and ranking in search engines. It is considered a best practice to stick to standard URL structures to avoid potential problems." "Rewrite the URL to contain only standard characters." Therefore we will rewrite the url, replacing "_" with "-". Will search engines consider the "-" url a different one? Do we need to 301 the old url to the new one? Thanks for your help!
On-Page Optimization | | gerardoH0 -
Is rel=canonical used only for duplicate content
Can the rel-canonical be used to tell the search engines which page is "preferred" when there are similar pages? For instance, I have an internal page that Google is showing on the first page of the SERPs that I would prefer the home page be ranked for. Both the home and internal page have been optimized for the same keyword. What is interesting is that the internal page has very few backlinks compared to the home page but Google seems to favor it since the keyword is in the URL. I am afraid a 301 will drop us from the first page of the SERPs.
On-Page Optimization | | surveygizmo0