Strange Behavior - Dupe Content Via Query String URLs?
-
Hey y'all, could use community help with some strange behavior I'm seeing with a particular ranking.
A week ago a high volume keyword ranking above the fold dropped off the map. I immediately thought must be an algorithmic penguin penalty (no manual action message) or panda / dupe content issue. I think it's dupe content at this point because I found my former ranking page in the omitted results section for the keyword we used to rank for.
The strange thing is that without making any changes, Google would momentarily show our domain ranking high page one again, but with a strange query string URL. At first just domain.com/page/? whereas the old ranking was held by domain.com/page/ but now I see several long query string URLs floating around that the engines don't seem to know what to do with. Canonical tags are in place to canonicalize any query string URL back to the top and I have now designated query string URLs as unimportant in Search Console parameter filtering but these URLs persist.
I ended up deduplicating content to a page on another domain we own (think that was the original problem) and there seemed to be a positive effect but now we are top of page 2 with a much longer query string URL as the ranking page. It seems Google wants to rank everything but the former ranking URL even though it's the most authoritative by far, has canonical signals in place, and is now no longer duplicate content. Content checker tool showed 60% similarity to the other piece, which is a ratio I've never known to cause dupe content.
We found the source of the query string URLs to be from an external site that has a link to us but it's a buggy site so filtering on the page adds the string to our URL, so Google can find them and thinks they're significant.
Long question short, has anyone had trouble like this? Getting weird parameter / query URLs to get out of the index in favor of the non-parameter folder? Is it possible the main folder page got hit with Penguin and is "banned?" Still, I don't know why Google would go out of it's way to rank query string copy pages in its place if that were the case. Any help greatly appreciated.
An example of the URL looks like this:
domain.com/page/?CustomerSubscriptionTrack1PageSize=1&CustomerSubscriptionTrack1Order=Sorter_ID&CustomerSubscriptionTrack1Dir=ASC&CustomerSubscriptionTrack1Page=3&WorkOrder_TBLOrder=Sorter_AssetID&WorkOrder_TBLDir=ASC&ID=106 -
Hey James, sorry to hear you're getting blasted by negative links and appreciate your responses here.
I actually sorted this one out (fingers crossed it stays that way) by having the dev team implement a redirect rule that 301 redirects any query string back to the folder we want ranking. Similar signal to what the canonical tag would send but in my opinion a stronger signal since there is no longer a way to reach those weird query string URLs with a 200 response.
Once that was implemented the appropriate page was right back to its old high ranking position and the query strings are hardly to be seen in the index and are no longer preferred to the old ranking page - so looks like all is right with the world again.
We also disavowed the domain that was the source of many of the query string URLs. I don't think it was a case of negative SEO - just bad coding on their side. I'm not sure what exactly did the trick but I suspect strongly that the 301 redirects is what solidified the index due tot the strong correlation of that change with ranking recovery.
Maybe you can employ a similar solution whereby you can disavow domains where these links originate or set up server side handling to manage URLs of a specific pattern - for example, any URL containing "pornsite.com" if not any query string altogether (in our case we don't have any use for query strings in our URLs so just bagged them all).
Thanks again,
Matt -
Thanks for the response, James. The odd thing is that canonical tags are implemented correctly as far as I can tell. In the of each variation you can find the following code:
rel="canonical" href="https://www.domain.com/page/" />
(still using my example so as to keep the site anonymous)
And this code had been in place well before the issue arose. So yes, we are sending that signal to Google to apply canonical back to the top in every case, without query string.
Not sure what you're confused by in Search Console - the platform provides a tool to deal with parameter URLs just like the ones I'm seeing. I used it to mark all parameter URLs as not changing content, which should designate to engines to exclude them from the index.
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
-
After you remove a 301 redirect that Google has processed, will the new URL retain any of the link equity from the old URL?
Lets say you 301 redirect URL A to URL B, and URL A has some backlinks from other sites. Say you left the 301 redirect in place for a year, and Google had already replaced the old URL with the new URL in the SERPs, would the new URL (B) retain some of the link equity from URL A after the 301 redirect was removed, or does the redirect have to remain in place forever?
Technical SEO | | johnwalkersmith0 -
What is best practice for fixing urls that have duplicate content, non-static and other issues?
Hi, I know there are several good answers regarding duplicate content issues on this website already, however I have a question that involves the best way to avoid negative SEO impacts if I change the urls for an ecommerce site. Basically a new client has the following website http://www.gardenbeauty.co.uk and I notice that it suffers from duplicate content due to the http://www version and the non www version of the pages - this seems quite easy to fix using the guidance on this website. However I notice that the product page urls are far from ideal in that they have several issues including:- (a) they are mostly too long (b) don't include the keyword terms (in terms of best practice) (c) they don't use Static URLS An example of one these product urls would be http://www.gardenbeauty.co.uk/plant-details.php?name=Autumn Glory&p_genus=Hebe&code=heagl&category=hebe I'd like to address these issues, but the pages rank highly for the products themselves, therefore my question is what would you recommend I do to fix the urls without risking the high positions that many of these product pages have? thanks, Ben
Technical SEO | | bendyman0 -
Page URL Change
We're planning on rolling out a redesign of an existing page, and at the same time, we're looking to possibly changing the URL of the page. Currently, the URL is www.blah.com/phraseword1-phraseword2-phraseword3-phraseword4 and we're ranking top 3 in Google SERP for that 4-word phrase. The keyword phrase is something we have in our Page Title, Site Copy and the URL. Now, we are planning on simplifying the URL to below.. www.blah.com/phraseword1-phraseword2 The plan is to 301 redirect the original URL to this new URL and actually work the exact phrase into the copy a few more times. My understanding is that URL doesn't get as much weight as it does in the past, but it's still important. So my question is... How important is the URL in this case where we will continue to have it in our page title and also we'll be working more copy on to the page with the appropriate keyword? Will 301 redirect from the old URL address the issue of passing SEO value for that keyword phrase? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | JoeLin
Joe0 -
URL query considered duplicate content?
I have a Magento site. In order to reduce duplicate content for products of the same style but with different colours I have combined them on to 1 product page. I would like to allow the pictures to be dynamic, i.e. allow a user to search for a colour and all the products that offer that colour appear in the results, but I dont want the default product image shown but the product image for that colour applying to the query. Therefore to do this I have to append a query string to the end of the URL to produce this result: www.website.com/category/product-name.html?=red My question is, will the query variations then be picked up as duplicate content: www.website.com/category/product-name.html www.website.com/category/product-name.html?=red www.website.com/category/product-name.html?=yellow Google suggest it has contingencies in its algorithm and I will not be penalised: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/google-duplicate-content-caused-by-url.html But other sources suggest this is not accurate. Note the article was written in 2007.
Technical SEO | | BlazeSunglass0 -
Does Google pass link juice a page receives if the URL parameter specifies content and has the Crawl setting in Webmaster Tools set to NO?
The page in question receives a lot of quality traffic but is only relevant to a small percent of my users. I want to keep the link juice received from this page but I do not want it to appear in the SERPs.
Technical SEO | | surveygizmo0 -
Duplicate Content Issue
Hi Everyone, I ran into a problem I didn't know I had (Thanks to the seomoz tool) regarding duplicate content. my site is oxford ms homes.net and when I built the site, the web developer used php to build it. After he was done I saw that the URL's looking like this "/blake_listings.php?page=0" and I wanted them like this "/blakes-listings" He changed them with no problem and he did the same with all 300 pages or so that I have on the site. I just found using the crawl diagnostics tool that I have like 3,000 duplicate content issues. Is there an easy fix to this at all or does he have to go in and 301 Redirect EVERY SINGLE URL? Thanks for any help you can give.
Technical SEO | | blake-766240 -
Does google recognize original content when affiliates use xml-feeds of this content
Hi, Concerning the upcoming (We're from the Netherlands) Panda release: -Could the fact that our affiliates use XML-feeds of our content effect our rankings in some way -Is it possible to indicate to google that content is yours? Kind regards, Dennis Overbeek dennis@acsi.eu | ACSI publishing | www.suncamp.nl | www.eurocampings.eu
Technical SEO | | SEO_ACSI0 -
Copying Content With Permission
Hi, we received an email about a guy who wants to copy and paste our content on his website, he says he will keep all the links we put there and give us full credit for it, so besides keeping all the links on the page, which is the best way for him to give us the credit? a link to the original article? an special meta tag? what? Thank you PS.Our site its much more authorative than his and we get indexed within 10min from the moment we publish a page, so I don't worry about him out raking us with our own content.
Technical SEO | | andresgmontero0