Canonical vs Alternate for country based subdomain dupe content?
-
What's the correct method for tagging dupe content between country based subdomains?
We have:
mydomain.com // default, en-us
www.mydomain.com // en-us
uk.mydomain.com // uk, en-gb
au.mydomain.com // australia, en-au
eu.mydomain.com // europe, en-eu
In the header of each we currently have rel="alternate" tags but we're still getting dupe content warnings in Moz for the "WWW" subdomain.
Question 1) Are we headed in the right direction with using alternate? Or would it be better to use canonical since the languages are technically all English, just different regions. The content is pretty much the same minus currency and localization differences.
Question 2) How can we solve the dupe content between WWW and the base domain, since the above isn't working.
Thanks so much
-
Yes.
-
Thanks.
So then I am safe when including all of these on every subdomain?
I have a common header where the above is the exact same for every subdomain (all 4 are always included), which I assume is the correct way?
Also: Why doesn't Moz look at the hreflang tag? I'm very worried about just "ignoring" what the tool says... why is the top SEO tool in the world not capable of correctly detecting dupe content? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with just ignoring the check engine light, so to speak.
-
In cases like yours, using the hreflang is the correct way to handle the duplicate content issue, because of the characteristics you yourself cite: currency and localization, which may be tiny differences in terms of "content" but huge in terms of usability and making completely different a product page from another.
Remember that if you canonicalize all the "duplicate" toward the canonical, the canonicalized URLs won't be shown in the countries you're targeting with those URLs... so screwing up the international SEO strategy 100%, so each URL must have as canonical its own URL (self referential), apart the obvious canonicalization rules being applied (e.g.: url with parameter canonicalized to url without parameter).
In case the URL is canonicalized for whatever reason, remember to indicate the canonical URLs in the href of the hreflang annotations. On the contrary Google will start alerting of no-return URLs errors.
Regarding the Moz Pro crawler... don't pay attention to it, because it doesn't consider the hreflang annotation,therefore it will continue saying that those pages are duplicate.
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 content
Hello mozzers, I have an unusual question. I've created a page that I am fully aware that it is near 100% duplicate content. It quotes the law, so it's not changeable. The page is very linkable in my niche. Is there a way I can build quality links to it that benefit my overall websites DA (i'm not bothered about the linkable page being ranked) without risking panda/dupe content issues? Thanks, Peter
Technical SEO | | peterm21 -
Duplicate content and rel canonicals?
Hi. I have a question relating to 2 sites that I manage with regards to duplicate content. These are 2 separate companies but the content is off a data base from the one(in other words the same). In terms of the rel canonical, how would we do this so that google does not penalise either site but can also have the content to crawl for both or is this just a dream?
Technical SEO | | ProsperoDigital0 -
Duplicate Content
Hello guys, After fixing the rel tag on similar pages on the site I thought that duplicate content issue were resolved. I checked HTML Improvements on GWT and instead of going down as I expected, it went up. The duplicate issues affect identical product pages which differ from each other just for one detail, let's say length or colour. I could write different meta tags as the duplicate is the meta description, and I did it for some products but still didn't have any effects and they are still showing as duplicates. What would the problem be? Cheers
Technical SEO | | PremioOscar0 -
Duplicate Content Issues
We have some "?src=" tag in some URL's which are treated as duplicate content in the crawl diagnostics errors? For example, xyz.com?src=abc and xyz.com?src=def are considered to be duplicate content url's. My objective is to make my campaign free of these crawl errors. First of all i would like to know why these url's are considered to have duplicate content. And what's the best solution to get rid of this?
Technical SEO | | RodrigoVaca0 -
Duplicate page content
Hello, The pro dashboard crawler bot thing that you get here reports the mydomain.com and mydomain.com/index.htm as duplicate pages. Is this a problem? If so how do I fix it? Thanks Ian
Technical SEO | | jwdl0 -
Rel canonical confusion
I have 172 pages on my site coming up as having a rel canoncial tag This is not something I've added myself so I think it must either be part of wordpress or part of a plug in I'm using . ALL in One SEO? They have come up as blue warning so not sure if it's a big deal, or what i need to do to fix it. www.katetooncopywriter.com.au Thanks Kate
Technical SEO | | ToonyWoony0 -
Is this considered Duplicate Content?
Good Morning, Just wondering if these pages are considered duplicate content? http://goo.gl/t9lkm http://goo.gl/mtfbf Can you please take a look and advise if it is considered duplicate and if so, what should i do to fix... Thanks
Technical SEO | | Prime850 -
Rel=Canonical being ignored?
Hi all, We have a toys website that has several categories. It's setup such that each product has a primary category amongst the categories within it can be found. For example... Addendum's primary url is http://www.brightminds.co.uk/childrens-toys/board-games/addendum.htm but it can also be found here http://www.brightminds.co.uk/learning-toys/maths-learning/addendum.htm. Hence, in the for that url it has a rel=canonical that points to the first url. For some reason though seomoz ignores this and reports duplicate page content. It doesn't seem to record the canonical tag either. Any ideas what's going on? Thanks, Josh.
Technical SEO | | joshgeake_gmail.com0