Roger keeps telling me my canonical pages are duplicates
-
I've got a site that's brand spanking new that I'm trying to get the error count down to zero on, and I'm basically there except for this odd problem. Roger got into the site like a naughty puppy a bit too early, before I'd put the canonical tags in, so there were a couple thousand 'duplicate content' errors. I put canonicals in (programmatically, so they appear on every page) and waited a week and sure enough 99% of them went away.
However, there's about 50 that are still lingering, and I'm not sure why they're being detected as such. It's an ecommerce site, and the duplicates are being detected on the product page, but why these 50? (there's hundreds of other products that aren't being detected). The URLs that are 'duplicates' look like this according to the crawl report:
http://www.site.com/Product-1.aspx
http://www.site.com/product-1.aspx
And so on. Canonicals are in place, and have been for weeks, and as I said there's hundreds of other pages just like this not having this problem, so I'm finding it odd that these ones won't go away.
All I can think of is that Roger is somehow caching stuff from previous crawls? According to the crawl report these duplicates were discovered '1 day ago' but that simply doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of messing up one or two pages on my part either; we made this site to be dynamically generated, and all of the SEO stuff (canonical, etc.) is applied to every single page regardless of what's on it.
If anyone can give some insight I'd appreciate it!
-
ThompsonPaul -
Thanks for that info, it pretty much nails exactly what I had discovered independently. This is an IIS7/Win2k8R2 install so luckily the rewriting is a bit easier than in previous iterations. The whole platform is hand coded by us (after the 10th ecommerce site or so you can generally do them in your sleep) so I don't have to worry about CMS implementation and the like, and luckily we already knew that about the spaces so they simply aren't allowed in the filenames. I'm in the middle of making a regex right now that is going to down-case anything in an href="" or src="" tag that will hopefully handle everything on the site side user-created or not. Will consider what to do in regards to external links a bit down the road I think.
-
Valery, you're definitely going to want to normalize your URLs to lowercase. This is a quirk of IIS that it actually respects case in URLs and will consider different case URLs as different pages.
In addition to the search engine problems it creates, it's also a major problem for usabilty - yours and your users. For example, a user who is trying to type in a direct URL can get a 404 error depending on what case they use.
More importantly, your Google Analytics will report on each of those version as separate pages, unless you write a normalizing filter into your GA profiles. Better to do that normalization for the actual site, not just your analytics
While rel=canonical can resolve a number of issues, I've always found it vastly better to correct the actual problem at its root, rather than rely on canonicalization as a catch-all. Anecdotally, I've found correcting issues like this with rewrites seems to allow affected pages to rank better than when just corrected with canonicalization. WIsh I could find time to do an actual case-study on that
Managing rewrites on IIS servers will require a plugin like asapi-rewrite as IIS doesn't handle it natively.
P.S. IIS will also allow and respect spaces in URLs. Users in Internet Explorer will see them as normal with spaces but browsers like Firefox will insert the html entity for a space (%20) into each necessary spot in the URL. This is again a mess for usability, so much better to force rewrite of all URLs to replace spaces with dashes when creating new pages. Many CMSs have plugins for this or you can also use sitewide rewrites to do it after the fact.
-
I think I get your point; the canonical is pointing to where the juice should go, but the URLs are still functionally different things. I'm guessing some sort of URL rewrite is in order, and to standardize how I do in-text links on the site (with user-editable content this part could be a pain).
-
Hey Valery,
I see those on closer inspection. I know it looks weird, but that's accurate. Your server must be UNIX or Linux so they will actually treat case as a different word.
For example: banana.com/pancakes.html would be treated differently than banana.com/PanCakes.html.
So if you have any pages generated dynamically or otherwise that differ only in case, then they will be tagged as duplicate.
In your CSV file you can see the duplicates being caused by case. I'd also be happy to help provide a few specific examples but would want to generate a ticket for you so we don't divulge any private information.
Cheers,
Joel.
-
Joel -
Thanks a lot for looking into that. The pages are very similar, so I'm not surprised they're being duplicate triggered; but what does surprise me is that they are apparently being considered duplicate to a canonical version of themselves? When I click on the duplicate list I'm expecting to see:
Product1.aspx
Product1-Blue.aspx
Product1-Red.aspx
But instead I'm seeing:
Product1.aspx
product1.aspx
product1.ASPX
And so on. The first scenario to me implies that the 3 pages are duplicate to each other, whereas the second is saying that there's either a canonical problem or I literally have different-case versions of those files.
-
Hi Valery,
I took a peek at your campaign and it looks like those few remaining duplicate pages are in fact different, but very minor differences. Basically there's pages for different sizes of things.
While being different, they vary in such minute ways that Roger see's them as duplicates.
I Hope that answers the question.
Thanks,
Joel.
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
-
Why doesn't Moz crawl whole pages of our website to report All On-Page issues?
Hi friends & mozzers, How can't Moz crawl whole pages of our website: https://www.4atvtires.com/ to report All Serious On-Page issues. We have more than 15000 product pages. And how could it be possible that Moz isn't able to crawl whole, just got crawl report upto 258 pages of our website, and also I can experience the same in Google webmaster ?? Please help to fix this issue as early as possible. Regards,
Moz Pro | | BigSlate
Rann0 -
Pages with Temporary Redirect (CTA)
I had MOZ crawl my site and I had 5 CTA pages with a temporary redirect. How do I correct the issue? Thank You! -Nick
Moz Pro | | X2Metrology10 -
Duplicate Content even when Canonical is used
Hi Everyone, Our website uses the Magento platform which is notorious for creating duplicate content. I tried to make sure that all the duplicate content it creates should be "canonicalized" to the correct page. While looking through the moz Page Diagnostics I see that I have 1003(!) pages of duplicate content. When I downloaded the csv I saw that over 95% of them had a canonical url. Does that mean there is really no issue but moz analytics is still reading it as duplicate content and titles? Is there an issue with them being canonicals as opposed to being redirected? Thanks!
Moz Pro | | EcomLkwd1 -
How long will it take for Page Rank (or Page Authority) to flow via a 301 redirect?
I've recently redeveloped a static site using WordPress and have created 301 redirects for the original urls to the new urls. I know I won't get all the value passed via the 301, but I'm hoping some will. Any idea how long this may take? It's been nearly a month since the changeover so wondering if it would be weeks, months or more?
Moz Pro | | annomd0 -
Duplicate page content showing up with proper use of canonical tag
Hi, In the Crawl diagnostics reports, I'm getting lots of duplicate errors warnings e.g. duplicate page title. In most cases these are tracking urls and the page has a canonical tag pointing to the original page. It would be helpful if the crawl analysis reports could separate these out from ones that are of genuine concern. It can also happen when there's a noindex tag on a page. Thanks, Leigh
Moz Pro | | Leighm0 -
SEOmoz indicating duplicate page content on one of my campaigns
Hello All, Alright, according to SEOmoz's PRO campaign manager, one of my websites is returning about 2,700 pages that supposedly have duplicate content. I checked a few of them manually and am not seeing where the issue lies. Is anyone else experiencing something similar to this and do you know if it is just a glitch with the crawl? Here are 2 of the pages it is indicating have dup page content: http://www.dieselpowerproducts.com/c-3120-1994-98-59l-12v-dodge-cummins-carbon-fiber-hoods.aspx http://www.dieselpowerproducts.com/c-90-dodge-cummins-94-02-59l-12v24v.aspx Any insight would be greatly appreciated! -Craig
Moz Pro | | ckilgore0 -
HTTP 404 for 404-page?
Hi Mozzers! SEOmoz just finished crawling one of my websites and this crawl found 3 errors. One of these errors was the (custom) 404-page, because of the http-status 404. What's you suggestion about this? Should a 404-page have a status 404? Thanks in advance for your suggestions!
Moz Pro | | Partouter0 -
Rel=canonical
Hi, there is something puzzling us about the rel=canonical reports... On the general report that is generated after the system crawls our site, we have blue flags on the rel=canonical tag, but the flags don't actually specify exactly what is wrong, they just say: "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical." so we presumed that we should take the rel=canonical tag out of our pages, and after we did so, we noticed that the on-page-report-card (the one that shows up when you run the keyword page optimization tool from the research tools) says (close to the bottom of the report) that we should have 1 canonical tag on each page. So right now we're confused, the general website crawl report flags the rel canonical as being bad and then the on page report flags not having them, we don't really know what to do, should we keep the rel=canonical or not? We are using wordpress to power our site, wordpress has a built-in system for generating the rel canonical for each page, I've checked that and the tags are being generated properly, but we have no idea why the general website report flags them in blue, the error message is not too comprehensive. Any help or information you could provide would be much appreciated. Our website is taxproblem.org thanks.
Moz Pro | | joemas990