Huge in crease in on page errors

[Hardley111]

Hi guys I’ve just checked my online campaign and I see errors  in my crawl diagnostics have almost doubled from the 21^st of October to the 25^th of October going from 6708 errors to 11 599. Can anyone tell me what may have caused this?

Also I notice we have  a lot of  issues with duplicate page  titles   which seems strange as no new pages have been added, can anyone explain why this might be?

I look forward to hearing from you

[MattRoney]

Just noting that this discussion continues here:

http://moz.com/community/q/ongoing-duplicate

[Hardley111]

Hi Matt,

I hope things are going well. I'm just following up on the duplicate page issue .I have spoken to our web company and they have correct the issue last week  and I noted the amount of duplicates dropped  significantly. Ive just checked today and i see it's back up (I'm following this up with our web company). Are you able to offer any insights as to why this problem seems to reoccur

I was of the understanding  this is a permanent fix so once the change has been made, I cant understand why it then seems to reoccur?. Any insights would be much appreciated.

Regards

Pete

Dupeissue.jpg.html

[MattRoney]

Well, it stands to reason that something must've changed is order to cause such a huge increase. Looking through the list of duplicate URLs, I'm seeing a lot that could be fixed by rel="canonical". There's enough of them that adding a canonical link to each would be a huge undertaking or require some careful coding. I'm wondering if this increase could've been partially caused by someone removing rel="canonical" from a lot of pages.

For example, I'm seeing a lot of this:

http://www.health2000.co.nz/shop/aromatherapy/lemongrass-essential-oil/P4494/C56

vs.

http://www.health2000.co.nz/shop/aromatherapy/lemongrass-essential-oil/p4494/c56

The only difference between those URLs is capitalization. The first, capitalized version is the one that appears on your XML sitemap. I'm not 100% sure why both versions would be appearing to Roger—it may be an issue with the CMS—but a rel="canonical" on the former pointing to the latter would solve that problem.

Now, that doesn't look to be the only issue, but it _is _a large one.

Let me know what you find out!

[Hardley111]

That's ok Matt. I've put those two questions to our web company, although I don't think any  changes happened then, although I do know that they did work on the 27th of September. I m fairly sure in was rel =canonical in nature. I have asked them to confirm and will let you know in due course. As an aside  why do you think the changes you mentioned would be of effect on our web site?

[MattRoney]

Hi Pete,

Sure thing. Sorry it's taken so long!

May I ask what, if any, changes were made on the site between the 21st and 25th of October? In particular, were there any changes made involving rel="canonical"?

[Hardley111]

Hi Matt,

Ive just had a look an I  can now see the amount of pages, crawled on our site, is  comparable to our competitors, which is great!

However the amount of on page errors is significantly higher. In particularly the amount of duplicate errors is about 10 000  which is the same amount we had, before our web company fixed this issue. Are you able to give me any feed back as to what's happened there?. Thanks again for your help with this!

Pete

DuplicatePageErrors_4_Nov.jpg.html

[Hardley111]

Hi Matt,

No probs, I look forward to hearing from  you

Regards

Pete

[Hardley111]

That's awesome Keri,  thanks for following this up  : )

[MattRoney]

Hi Pete,

Sorry for the delay! I just wanted to let you know I'm looking into it, and should get back to you shortly.

Matt

[KeriMorgret]

Hi Pete,

This is going to need a bit more digging than I can do from where I sit. I'm going to ask a colleague of mine to come in and lend you a hand. Thanks for your patience!

Keri

[Hardley111]

Thanks Keri here is our site http://www.health2000.co.nz we have recently asked our IT company to make amendments to offset the duplicates page issue.

The  attached graphic shows the   problem was in recline but now it seems to have come back. Any idea why that might be? I would have thought 301 redirecting  would be an all or nothing solution. Also Ive asked our IT company and they have said this may take a while for  google to indexes our page. If that is correct , how long do you think will take?

I’ve set up campaigns for our organisation and four of our competitors and note that on average we have had 6500 pages crawled where as our  competitors have over 11000 pages crawled is there any reason why that might be? Thanks again for your help!

Pete

Capture-1.jpg.html

[KeriMorgret]

If you give him a 301 redirect it should help him, and the search engines, which is the most important part.

If you can touch base with your IT team and see if they changed something and ask them to change it back, that'd be a good place to start. If you can share your URL here, we can look at it and help direct you to the easiest way to fix things (if it is the www and non-www problem), or help identify the source of the problem.

[Hardley111]

Hi Keri,

Thanks for drooping me a line...... How do we make that cheeky little robot unfind one of them? : )

Cheers

Pete

[KeriMorgret]

Hmmm...my first thought is that if it's sudden duplicate content and doubling of errors is that perhaps Roger found both the www and non-www versions of the site?