Self referencing canonicals AND duplicate URLs. Have I set them up correctly?
-
Hi team,
We've recently redesigned our website.
Originally we had separate product listings for every product. Even if there was one design in two colours, each colour had its own listing.
With the redesign we merged all of these identical products to help with duplicate content. Customers can now browse the different stone colours available in that design from a single product listing (bottom left of screen under 'select a stone' on a product page)
When the customer changes the stone colour, the product images change to the new colour and its product code is appended to the end of the existing URL. eg:
http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/ (original listing)
http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/?sku=JC1725BL (black selected)
We have the following self referencing canonicals on all product pages [current-page:url:absolute], yet MOZ is telling me I have alot of duplicate content on pages with the above example.
Have I implemented the canonicals correctly? Is this why Moz is flagging the listings as duplicate?
-
If you've got that path anywhere in your navigation or other internal linking, you'd want to remove that or update it to /shop/necklaces/. The next step would be to 301 redirect /shop/necklaces/necklace/ to /shop/necklaces/ just in case you've got any links pointing to it - this will get your users where they want to go and also let search engines know you've relocated the page.
-
One last question,
How exactly would I remove /shop/necklaces/necklace/?
Sorry if that's a stupid question. I just want to know a bit more before I take it to our dev.
Thanks.
-
Thanks for this Logan!
I really appreciate the help.
-
As Yossi said, configuring parameters in Search Console should help - _but, _that's only going to help you out in Google.
Adding a disallow for those parameters in the robots file will help solve the problem in other search engines.
The thin content is definitely contributing as well. Moz identifies dupes based on a source code match between any two pages of 90% or higher. When you consider all your template code is the same across every page, thin content isn't enough to differentiate the source code.
I also noticed on one of those screenshots that you got a one dupe of /shop/necklaces/ and /shop/necklaces/necklace/. If you can, I recommend removing that second one with doubled up 'necklace' folders, that's going to cause a lot of dupes as well.
-
Hi Logan,
Thanks for looking into the canonicals for me. I'm glad to hear they appear to be configured correctly.
There are alot of duplicate page issues, with 109 in total at the moment.
Some are similar to the above example, some are URLS that contain refined search parameters (price, design etc), but most are just products which are almost identical. I think this is because most product pages have thin generic content, so for those examples we're in the process of writing unique product descriptions and adding unique imagery.
I've attached a few screenshot if you'd like to take a look. Your thoughts would be much appreciated
-
Thanks so much for the reply Yossi.
Great tip about using GSC URL parameter tools. I'll definitely implement that.
Appreciate it.
Jake
-
Jacob, as Logan wrote it looks like the canonicals are good to go.. (i just did a small sampling though..)
Not sure how your URLs are set but if the "sku=XXX" parameters are used only for color variations of a specific product, then you can use the URL paramater setting in Google Search Console.This will make your life easier, and it will ensure that no duplicate content is crawled by Google. But URL parameters must be used with caution
good luck
Yossi -
Hi Jacob,
I took a look at your site, and the canonicals appear to be configured correctly. When you look at your duplicates in the Site Crawl report in Moz, and you click the + next to where it says "1 duplicate", what are you seeing? Is it a URL set like the example you've used above, or something else?
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
-
Is a canonical tag required for already redirecting URLs?
Hi everyone, One of our websites was changed to non-www to www. The non-www pages were then redirected to avoid duplicate issue. Moz and Screaming Frog flagged a number of these redirected pages as missing canonical tags. Is the canonical tag still required for pages already redirecting? Or is it detecting another possible duplicate page that we haven't redirected yet? Also, the rankings for this website isn't improving despite having us optimising these pages as best as we could. I'm wondering if this canonical tag issue may be affecting it. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | nhhernandez0 -
Canonical sitemap URL different to website URL architecture
Hi, This may or may not be be an issue, but would like some SEO advice from someone who has a deeper understanding. I'm currently working on a clients site that has a bespoke CMS built by another development agency. The website currently has a sitemap with one link - EG: www.example.com/category/page. This is obviously the page that is indexed in search engines. However the website structure uses www.example.com/page, this isn't indexed in search engines as the links are canonical. The client is also using the second URL structure in all it's off and online advertising, internal links and it's also been picked up by referral sites. I suspect this is not good practice... however I'd like to understand whether there are any negative SEO effectives from this structure? Does Google look at both pages with regard to visits, pageviews, bounce rate, etc. and combine the data OR just use the indexed version? www.example.com/category/page - 63.5% of total pageviews
Technical SEO | | MikeSutcliffe
www.example.com/page - 34.31% of total pageviews Thanks
Mike0 -
Drupal SEO help - Duplicate content but very similar URLS?
Hi, This is a very strange problem and not sure how it has happened. I am adding packages to my website and a duplicate page & almost identical URL is being picked up by Google. E.g. the page I make is http://www.ukgirlthing.co.uk/hen-party/bristol-spa-rty-lunch-pampering-h... but then also appearing is http://www.ukgirlthing.co.uk/hen-party/bristol-spa-rty-pampering-hen-party. The node's are exactly the same, and if i edit one of them, the other also updates. You will notice that the URL's are almost exactly the same, except the words are re-organised slightly? Shall i just delete the URL alias of the duplicate entry or is there something else which is making this happen? These URL's are being picked up as duplicate content, although it's the same node! Hope you can help, Thank you!
Technical SEO | | Party_Experts0 -
Canonical tag or 301
Hi, Our crawl report is showing duplicate content. some of the report I am clear about what to do but on others I am not. Some of the duplicate content arises with a 'theme=default' on the end of the URL. Is this version of a page necessary for people to see when they visit the site (like a theme=print page is) in which case I think we should use a canonical tag, or is it not necessary in which case we should use a 301? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Houses0 -
How can you tell if a 301 has been set up correctly?
How can you tell if a 301 has been set up correctly. We had a .co.uk site that has moved over to a .com However the .co.uk we have hasd problems with the old webmaster giving control, but he has said he has implemented a 301 redirect to the new .com site, and if you click on .co.uk it does transfer you to the .com site How can we check that it is a 301 set up and not another sort of redirect?
Technical SEO | | ocelot0 -
Am I Doing this Canonical Right?
Hi,I admit to new to the Mod Rewrite.Here is my mod rewrite in my .htaccess# Begin non-www page protection # <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
Technical SEO | | Force7
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]</ifmodule> # End non-www page protection #If I have my home page set toI really want the canonical to be www.domain.com no trailing slashDid I create a confllict, and if so, how should I change it?0 -
Variables in URLS?
How much do variables in URLs hurt indexing of that page? I'm worried that with this huge string of variables that the pages won't get indexed. Here's what I think we should have: http://adomainname.com/New/Local/State/City/Make/Model/ Here's the current URL:http://adomainname.com/New/Local/MN/Bayport/Jeep/Liberty?curPage=1&pageResultSize=50&orderDir=DESC&orderBy=ModifiedDate&conditionId=1&makeId=7&modelId=141&stateProvinceName=Minnesota&mc=1
Technical SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Getting rid of duplicate content with rel=canonical
This may sound like a stupid question, however it's important that I get this 100% straight. A new client has nearly 6k duplicate page titles / descriptions. To cut a long story short, this is mostly the same page (or rather a set of pages), however every time Google visits these pages they get a different URL. Hence the astronomical number of duplicate page titles and descriptions. Now the easiest way to fix this looks like canonical linking. However, I want to be absolutely 100% sure that Google will then recognise that there is no duplicate content on the site. Ideally I'd like to 301 but the developers say this isn't possible, so I'm really hoping the canonical will do the job. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | RiceMedia0