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
-
Managing Zendesk content, specifically redirecting/retiring content?
We've been using Zendesk to manage support content, and have old/duplicate articles that we'd like to redirect. However, Zendesk doesn't seem to have a solution for this, and the suggestions we've found (some hacky JS) have not worked. I'd like for us to not just delete/hide these articles. Has anyone else successfully navigated retiring/redirecting Zendesk content in an SEO-friendly fashion?
Technical SEO | | KMStrava0 -
Google Appending Blog URL inbetween my homepage and product page is it issue with base url?
Hi All, Google Appending Blog URL inbetween my homepage and product page. Is it issue or base url or relative url? Can you pls guide me? Looking to both tiny url you will get my point what i am saying. Please help Thanks!
Technical SEO | | amu1230 -
URL Change, Old URLs Still In Index
Recently changed URLs on a website to remove dynamic parameters. We 301'd the old dynamic links (canonical version) to the cleaner parameter-free URLs. We then updated the canonical tags to reflect these changes. All pages dropped at least a few ranking positions and now Moz shows both the new page ranking slightly lower in results pages and the old page still in the index. I feel like I'm splitting value between the two page versions until the old one disappears... is there a way to consolidate this quickly?
Technical SEO | | ShawnW0 -
Premium Content
Hey Guys I woking on a site that publishes hundreds of new content a day and part of the content is only available for users for 30 days. After 30 days the content is only accessible to premium users.
Technical SEO | | Mr.bfz
After 30 days, the page removes the content and replaces it with a log in/ sign up option. The same URL is kept for each page and the title of the article.
I have 2 concerns about this method. Is it healthy for the site to be removing tons of content of live pages and replace with a log in options Should I worry about Panda for creating tons of pages with unique URL but very similar source /content - the log in module and the text explaining that it is only available to premium users. The site is pretty big so google has some tolerance of things we can get away with it. Should I add a noindex attribute for those pages after 30 days? Even though it can takes months until google actually removes from the index. Is there a proper way for performing this type of feature in sites with a log in option after a period of time (first click free is not an option) Thanks Guys and I appreciate any help!0 -
Why are pages linked with URL parameters showing up as separate pages with duplicate content?
Only one page exists . . . Yet I link to the page with different URL parameters for tracking purposes and for some reason it is showing up as a separate page with duplicate content . . . Help? rpcIZ.png
Technical SEO | | BlueLinkERP0 -
Duplicate content, how to solve?
I have about 400 errors about duplicate content on my seomoz dashboard. However I have no idea how to solve this, I have 2 main scenarios of duplication in my site: Scenario 1: http://www.theprinterdepo.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?name=64MB+SDRAM+DIMM+MEMORY+MODULE&sku=&price%5Bfrom%5D=&price%5Bto%5D=&category= 3 products with the same title, but different product models, as you can note is has the same price as well. Some printers use a different memory product module. So I just cant delete 2 products. Scenario 2: toners http://www.theprinterdepo.com/brother-high-capacity-black-toner-cartridge-compatible-73 http://www.theprinterdepo.com/brother-high-capacity-black-toner-cartridge-compatible-75 In this scenario, products have a different title but the same price. Again, in this scenario the 2 products are different. Thank you
Technical SEO | | levalencia10 -
Trailing Slashes In Url use Canonical Url or 301 Redirect?
I was thinking of using 301 redirects for trailing slahes to no trailing slashes for my urls. EG: www.url.com/page1/ 301 redirect to www.url.com/page1 Already got a redirect for non-www to www already. Just wondering in my case would it be best to continue using htacces for the trailing slash redirect or just go with Canonical URLs?
Technical SEO | | upick-1623910 -
Blog URLs
I read somewhere - pretty sure is was in Art of SEO - that having dates in the blog permalink URLs was a bad idea. e.g. /blog/2011/3/my-blog-post/ However, looking at Wordpress best practice, it's also not a good idea to have a URL without a number - it's more resource hungry if you don't , apparently. e.g. /blog/my-blog-post/ Does anyone have any views on this? Thanks Ben
Technical SEO | | atticus70