While I agree with the above comments, it's not always that easy i.e. an ecommerce product page when there is more than one way of naming the product. Also, 1000+ words of unique content on each page in that scenario may look a little bit odd (most people just want a product description and specifications, if necessary).

If she can make two pages, terrific! If not, is it better to combine your keywords?

Thanks for the responses guys.

We were going to just have a unisex version of these pages located on the female sections and have the links on the male part redirect there, but our designer thought this would break the customer process up too much as once on those pages, the only way back to where they were (the male part) would be to click the back bottom on the browser as simply clicking to return home would take them to the home of the female part.

I'll make them canonical them - cheers!

So, we're a service where you can book different hairdressing services from a number of different salons (site being worked on). We're doing both a male and female version of the site on the same domain which users are can select between on the homepage.

The differences are largely cosmetic (allowing the designers to be more creative and have a bit of fun and to also have dedicated male grooming landing pages), but I was wondering about duplicate pages.

While most of the pages on each version of the site will be unique (i.e. [male service] in [location] vs [female service] in [location] with the female taking precedent when there are duplicates), what should we do about the likes of the "About" page?

Pages like this would both be unique in wording but essentially offer the same information and does it make sense to to index two different "About" pages, even if the titles vary?

My question is whether, for these duplicate pages, you would set the more popular one as the preferred version canonically, leave them both to be indexed or noindex the lesser version entirely?

Hope this makes sense, thanks!

Ah, thanks - that's very useful to know. I might try and incorporate a bit of the article content into the title as way suggested by Simon above.

Cheers!

Thanks very much!

I hadn't done that as I'd wanted to keep the sense of consistency week to week, but what you say makes a great deal of sense. Do you think it might might be better to highlight the main article content and then put a consistent part at the end.

As an example, today will mainly be focusing on a new UK cosmetic surgery review, so the title might be "Cosmetic Crisis: UK Cosmetic Report - Beauty Industry News" or do you think it better to simply leave the last part out?

Thanks!

Hi,

I do most of the current copy for our blog which you can find here http://appointedd.com/blog/

I believe having a regular blog structure with a mix of irregular ad hoc posts to go in around these. So, for this blog, I write an article on "Beauty Industry News" every week.

Now, I don't want to use the same title for each post, so I've peen butting in the date after each one i.e. "Beauty Industry News - 24/04/13". Is this best practice or is there a better way of naming regular posts?

Thanks in advance!

I've been confused about seemingly simple things too and the more you think on them, the more confused you get - it's a horrid cycle sometimes.

What I've been wondering about is Stumble Upon etc. If one does put up content here, and other reputable places, does this become duplicate with what's on the original site? It seems like it would to me, but I'm not certain.

Thank you, that's what I've done, so that's great.

Brilliant answer, very informative, so thank you.

Hi!

Do you think it better to:

a) have all archives crawled (date, time, category etc.) even though they create duplicate content,. or;

b) disable crawling of all archives?

Ideally, I'd like to set up just excerpts in the archives and have a unique intro for each, but I'm having trouble doing this just now so was wondering which is the smarter option in the meantime?

Thanks very much!