Update in Moz spider/tools?? Flagging duplicate content / ignoring canonical
-
Hi all,
Has there been an update in the SEOmoz crawling software?
We now have thousands of dupe content/page title warnings for paginated product page URLs that have correctly formatted canonicals.
e.g.
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
... has following pages with identical content that have been flagged:
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4
..plus 4 more URL's.
But they all have canonical set. There's even a notice at the bottom of report that tells us there's a canonical set to http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
What gives, SEOmoz ??
Thanks
Michael
-
Hey Lawrence,
Campaigns have a 95% tolerance for duplicate content. This includes all the source code on the page and not just the viewable text. So if a URL is at least 95% similar in code and content to another URL, this warning will appear.
You can run your own tests using this tool: http://www.webconfs.com/similar-page-checker.php
We don't know what standard Google uses, but it's safe to say they are a bit more sophisticated than us - so you might be okay in this regard as long as you have a couple hundred words of unique text and some unique coding per page. Google won't say how much duplicate content is too much, so we like to be better safe than sorry.
I hope this help. Let me know if you need further assistance.
-Chiaryn
-
Hi Chiaryn,
Thanks for reply and explanation. The different colour-specific pages e.g. Tweed Green and Olive Green have some different content but it's nothing like enough in cases of two greens, two blues etc. as we simplify colour names for search so when there is an Olive and a Tweed Green they both end up having 'Green' as variable in page title, H1 etc. Will fix this.
Do you think the reviews at the bottom of the pages will also trigger dupe content warning? i.e. even if we make all other on-page elements unique for each colour url? (page title, H1, H2, prod description etc) The reviews are quite extensive and are the same on all the separate colour specific product page versions of each style and was thinking today whether we should remove them from these colour product pages (OR perhaps let the colour product pages have their OWN reviews)
http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx
Thanks again
-
Oh, brilliant (re: "See more" aspect) Thanks for the info. Will let you how we tackle this and the repercussions (!) and look forward to hearing how you get on also!
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for writing in. I already emailed you in response to the ticket you sent in to the Help Desk, but I will copy my answer here for you review.
--
I looked into your campaign and it seems that this is happening because of where your canonical tags are pointing. These pages are considered duplicates because their canonical tags point to different URLs. For example, http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx is considered a duplicate of http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4 because the canonical tag for the first page is http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx while the canonical for the second URL ishttp://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx, with one URL showing tweed-green and the other showing olive-green.
Since the canonical tags point to different URLs it is assumed that http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx and http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx are likely to be duplicates themselves.
Here is how our system interprets duplicate content vs. rel canonical:
Assuming A, B, C, and D are all duplicates,
If A references B as the canonical, then they are not considered duplicates
If A and B both reference C as canonical, A and B are not considered duplicates of each other
If A references C as a canonical, A and B are considered duplicated
If A references C as canonical, B references D, then A and B are considered duplicates
The examples you've provided actually fall into the fourth example I've listed above.I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
--
-Chiaryn
-
We use the "See more" script on our sites, and from what I understand, at least from other Mozzers, this is an okay practice. http://www.seomoz.org/q/using-more-info-javascript-toggledisplay-tag-for-more-info-text
We also use the rel="prev" and rel="next" to some success, but I can't comment on how that's functioning canonical-wise, because IT WAS DROPPED from our latest redesign and is going to be added to our client's website in the latest release. Oye.
I'd love to hear how this works out for you. There are some really great Mozzers on here with loads of experience about canonical tags and duplicate page issues. Can't wait to see what they have to contribute.
-
Hi there,
Thanks for your response.
It's not product page A being seen as a duplicate of product page B etc, but several versions of product A seen as duplicate due to pagination, stemming from reviews for the products that span several pages, so making the rest of the content, titles etc different other than the (crawlable) reviews isn't really an option.
Will look more into "noindex, follow" tags in pagination.
We could have a View All page for indexing showing all reviews (with lots of scrolling!) , with the paginated versions canonicalized to that version (could still serve the paginated version of product page from site navigation perhaps with "noindex, follow" meta tag) Text doesn’t take long to load and this approach would consolidate the review content.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html
Other option is to use rel=”prev” and rel=”next” implementation which shows Google the relationship between the pages (not sure if it will still be flagged as dupe content in SEOmoz though! Depends if they follow the tag). This way individual pages might get indexed (not sure if that's a good thing?!) perhaps if there's something in a review from (say) page 5 of the product reviews.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
Ideally I'd like to implement all reviews on one page and hide them with a facebook-style 'See more' function. Not sure if that counts as hiding content? Will look into this.
-
Hi Michael,
Not sure if this helps you out at all, but I found this about the canonicals and SEOMoz crawl report in a previous Q http://mz.cm/11erRj6:
As far as the SEOmoz crawl reports go, not that setting a canonical won't stop these pages being reported as duplicate content.
From the help:
"Keep in mind that that canonicals will stop the pages from ranking against each other, but they will still show up as duplicate content from a UI perspective, so we will still count them as duplicate."
I have the same issues on my accounts. I'm focusing on making the pages content as unique as possible, or using the "noindex, follow" meta tags to see if that makes a difference.
I know you may have a lot of pages on your website, but perhaps writing short descriptions on your products would help. It might be worthwhile, but completely understandable that it may be a huge undertaking if you have hundreds or thousands of pages.
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
-
Canonical tag on webstore products to avoid Duplicate Page Content ?
Hi, I would like to have an opinion on what how we are planning to solve the issue with Duplicate Page Contents that MOZ PRO is showing us. MOZ Pro is showing us a lot of pages with duplicate content as High Priority Issue. Mainly the problem is with products which have very few differences between them, e.g. pink bike model X and red bike model X. So we decided to implement a canonical tag on these products, and the pink bike model X will now have a canonical pointing to the red bike model X. So hopefully we will be ranking higher with our red bike model X and our pink bike model X will disapear from the index. Am I right ? Is it a good practice, since we will loose long tails indexes? I check each canonical in the Search Console, and we have extremely few searched for "pink bike model X" most of searches are "bike model X". Thank you in advance for your opinion. Isabelle
Moz Pro | | isabelledylag0 -
Duplicate Content: Marketing Page / Content Page
So I am getting duplicate content warnings on my website for my pages white paper and webinar video pages. Each white paper / webinar video page is behind a marketing form page that must be filled out. I am getting a lot of warnings that the marketing page and the content page are being picked up as duplicated content. In the past, both the marketing page and the content page were given the same title and url, the body content is not similar. My question: Is the URL / Title similarity enough to set off the duplicate content warnings and would changing one or the other solve the issue?
Moz Pro | | AllMedSeo0 -
What are the restrictions/limitations to running SEO/Adwords in these countries?
What are the limitations or restrictions to running SEO/Adwords campaigns in countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, Portugal, Spain, and Mexico?
Moz Pro | | ThomasCenterInc0 -
How to solve duplicate page title & content error
I got lot of errors in Duplicate page title - 5000 Here the result page is same and content is also same,but it differs only with page no in meta title Title missing error In seomoz report i got empty msg - title,meta desc,meta robots,meta refresh But if i check the link which i got error it shows all meta tags..we have added all meta tags in our site..But i dont no why i got title missing error . 404 error In this report,if i click the link which i got error, it goes to main page of our site. But the url differs. eg: The error link is :www.example.com/buy/requirement-2-0-inmumbai-property it automatically goes to www.example.com page Let me know how to solve these issues.
Moz Pro | | Rajesh.Chandran0 -
Wrong duplicated page content
I found out that some errors on my website are considered as "duplicated page content" while they are not, the content is different on each page. I wonder why ? Is it an issue from Seomoz ?
Moz Pro | | Amadeus_eBC0 -
Keyword tool: SEOMOZ spacific month ? vs adword tool 12 month average but same data ???
Running a keyword analysis in SEOMOZ it shows my the folowing information "Local Search Volume (Dec)". I compared the data for the specific country , language and keyword with the adwords keyword tool and it exactly showed me the same numbers. The adwords keyword tool shows: "Local Monthly Searches: This column shows the approximate 12-month average number of search terms matching each keyword" http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=25148 So if the numbers are the same in google keword tool and SEOMOZ why is SEOMOZ saying that for a specif month? If the data is the same one of both can not be right or probaly I didn't get the point. See screenshot: http://screencast.com/t/GyaaW7EkwV Thanks for help
Moz Pro | | n-media0 -
Linkscape update
anyone else getting strange result from the new linkscape update? i've got a pa 78 and da 73 and it was pa 40 da 39 last week, and not much has changed, i know it shouldn't be that high another site has decreased when some top media sites have linked to it over the last month, strange.
Moz Pro | | chrisdragonsdesign0