Handling "legitimate" duplicate content in an online shop.
-
The scenario:
Online shop selling consumables for machinery.
Consumable range A (CA) contains consumables w, x, y, z. The individual consumables are not a problem, it is the consumables groups I'm having problems with.
The Problem:
Several machines use the same range of consumables. i.e. Machine A (MA) consumables page contains the list (CA) with the contents w,x,y,z. Machine B (MB) consumables page contains exactly the same list (CA) with contents w,x,y,z.
Machine A page = Machine B page = Consumables range A page
Some people will search Google for the consumables by the range name (CA). Most people will search by individual machine (MA Consumables, MB Consumables etc).
If I use canonical tags on the Machine consumable pages (MA + MB) pointing to the consumables range page (CA) then I'm never going to rank for the Machine pages which would represent a huge potential loss of search traffic.
However, if I don't use canonical tags then all the pages get slammed as duplicate content.
For somebody that owns machine A, then a page titled "Machine A consumables" with the list of consumables is exactly what they are looking for and it makes sense to serve it to them in that format.
However, For somebody who owns machine B, then it only makes sense for the page to be titled "Machine B consumables" even though the content is exactly the same.
The Question:
What is the best way to handle this from both a user and search engine perspective?
-
That's good solid advice. Thank you. Other ecommerce sites in the niche are nothing to write home about. Where they win is where this site has some major issues (larger than the one I'm asking about) that need fixing too.
I'm just trying to come up with a cohesive plan for a site that will blow the competition out of the water on Google (achievable) and increase sales / visitor. This is part of that.
Much as I don't like your suggestion due to the amount of work it is going to take to implement, I do think you are right and it's a better solution than the canonical tags.
That said, I suspect the canonical tags will be tried first, and then we will end up going with the content writing.
-
I have spent an inordinate amount of time cleaning up sites with templated pages and duplicate content. I can tell you that the potential gains are real, and the potential risks of inaction are often large.
Some text is better than no text. Google prefers a solid base of text-based content, period. It's their bread and butter and it helps them figure out what your page is about. Some time spent discussing with your team/writers how to best differentiate each page could be time very well spent. I don't know that it needs to be a solid block of prose; categories like manufacturer, machine type, year, etc. could be used in list or paragraph form (perhaps you already do this?)
You could look at other ecommerce sites that are ranking in your niche, and in others, to see what they do.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "The text would have to come before the products for SEO." What I will say is the position of the text on the page should probably be dictated by whatever is best for the user. Test it in different positions on the page (even the left or right sidebar) and see what converts better. I doubt if the text's position on the page will affect your rankings a great deal. As for the "boilerplate-ness," the crawlers can see if its unique or not.
-
I did consider that. It's in the hundreds and it could be done, but I'm not sure that's the way to go for the following reasons:
1. The number of consumables in the list is going to be at least 8 per page (each with snippet information and order box). That means that it would take a significant amount of text to make the content significantly different.
2. There is not a lot of difference between many of the machines, so writing a decent amount of text per item would be a major task. The more text written the more it affects point 3.
3. The text would have to come before the products for SEO (after the products just looks like the boilerplate-esque text that it would actually be) and that's not good for the consumer who just wants to see the consumables.
Also, we are finding more problems with the site every hour and we may not have the resources to get the text accomplished in a reasonable time-frame. Certainly, I'd have to be more certain of getting a "win" from it than I currently am before I suggest spending on it over other issues.
-
Ian,
Is it feasible to write unique text for the machine pages? I.e., are they in the hundreds or thousands? Do you have a budget to hire a writer(s)?
-
I may be missing something, but wouldn't canonical tags sort out your sort orders at least?
-
I have the same problem but it is listed as duplicate content within my site as a result of sort mechanisms and category pages. The consumer wants the sort mechanisms and category pages in order to find the products they are looking for quickly and I've tried everything and still have "duplicate content" listed on Moz crawls and Google Webmaster and just about everything. Imaging won't work for me since it is a result of database search mechanisms which cause the "duplicates" I also have canonical urls on pages but that doesn't solve the problem either. I think we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
-
Hi Ian,
There is a way around it, but first an opinion on duplicate content. I think that duplicate content issues are really about duplication across websites, not duplication within websites. Store ABC is expected to have a fair amount of text that repeats across it's own pages. The problem arises when both Store ABC and Store LMN and Store TUV all have the same bits of content (like product descriptions).
But anyways, if you really do not want to have your lists of consumables repeated on multiple pages, just turn the lists into images....
Then on the Machine A page display the image of the list and give it a file name and alt tag like "Machine A Consumables" and "Consumables for Machine A".
And on the Machine B page display a COPY of the image of the list and give it a NEW file name and alt tag like "Machine B Consumables" and "Consumables for Machine B". Etc, etc...
For the visitor, there is no difference between reading the words from text or an image. (unless they have sight issues and are using a screen reader)
Does this solve the problem?
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
-
Using "Div's" to place content at top of HTML
Is it still a good practice to use "div's" to place content at the top of the HTML code, if your content is at the bottom of the web page?
Technical SEO | | tdawson090 -
Redundant categorization - "boys" and "girls" category. Any other suggestions than implementing filtering?
One of our clients (a children's clothing company) has split their categories (outwear, tops, shoes) between boys and girls - There's one category page for girls outwear, and one category for boys outwear. I am suspecting that this redundant categorisation is diluting link juice and rankings for the related search queries. Important points: The clothes themselves are rather gender-neutral, girl's sweaters don't differ that much from the boy's sweaters. Our keyword research indicates that norwegians' search queries are also pretty gender neutral - people are generally searching after "children's dresses", "shoes for kids", "snowsuits", etc. So these gender specific categories are not really reflective of people's search behavior. I acknowledge that implementing a filter for "boys" and "girls" would be the best way to solve this redundant categorization, but that would simply be to expensive for our client. I'm thinking that some sort of canonicalisation would be the best approach to solve this issue. Are there any other suggestions or comments to this?
Technical SEO | | Inevo0 -
Affiliate Url & duplicate content
Hi i have checked passed Q&As and couldn't find anything on this so thought I would ask.
Technical SEO | | Direct_Ram
I have recently noticed my URLS adding the following to the end: mydomain.com/?fullweb=1 I cant seem to locate where these URLS are coming from and how this is being created? This is causing duplicate content on google. I wanted to know ig anyone has had any previous experience with something like this? If anyone has any information on this it would be a great help. thanks E0 -
Duplicate Content and URL Capitalization
I have multiple URLs that SEOMoz is reporting as duplicate content. The reason is that there are characters in the URL that may, or may not, be capitalized depending on user input. A couple examples are: www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/Houses-for-sale www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/houses-for-sale www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/Houses-for-rent www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/houses-for-rent There are currently thousands of instances of this on the site. Is this something I should spend effort to try and resolve (may not be minor effort), or should I just ignore it and move on?
Technical SEO | | Jom0 -
Duplicate Content - Just how killer is it?
Yesterday I received my ranking report and was extremely disappointed that my high-priority pages dropped in rank for a second week in a row for my targeted keywords. This is after running them through the gradecard and getting As for each of them on the keywords I wanted. I looked at my google webmaster tools and saw new duplicate content pages listed, which were the ones I had just modified to get my keyword targeting better. In my hastiness to work on getting the keyword usage up, I neglected to prevent these descriptions from coming up when viewing the page with filter parameters, sort parameters and page parameters... so google saw these descriptions as duplicate content (since myurl.html and myurl.html?filter=blah are seen as different). So my question: is this the likely culprit for some pretty drastic hits to ranking? I've fixed this now, but are there any ways to prevent this in the future? (I know _of _canonical tags, but have never used them, and am not sure if this applies in this situation) Thanks! EDIT: One thing I forgot to ask as well: has anyone inflicted this upon themselves? And how long did it take you to recover?
Technical SEO | | Ask_MMM0 -
Duplicate Content on Multinational Sites?
Hi SEOmozers Tried finding a solution to this all morning but can't, so just going to spell it out and hope someone can help me! Pretty simple, my client has one site www.domain.com. UK-hosted and targeting the UK market. They want to launch www.domain.us, US-hosted and targeting the US market. They don't want to set up a simple redirect because a) the .com is UK-hosted b) there's a number of regional spelling changes that need to be made However, most of the content on domain.com applies to the US market and they want to copy it onto the new website. Are there ways to get around any duplicate content issues that will arise here? Or is the only answer to simply create completely unique content for the new site? Any help much appreciated! Thanks
Technical SEO | | Coolpink0 -
Duplicate content domains ranking successfully
I have a project with 8 domains and each domain is showing the same content (including site structure) and still all sites do rank. When I search for a specific word-string in google it lists me all 8 domains. Do you have an explanation, why Google doesn't filter those URLs to just one URL instead of 8 with the same content?
Technical SEO | | kenbrother0 -
Duplicate Content and Canonical use
We have a pagination issue, which the developers seem reluctant (or incapable) to fix whereby we have 3 of the same page (slightly differing URLs) coming up in different pages in the archived article index. The indexing convention was very poorly thought up by the developers and has left us with the same article on, for example, page 1, 2 and 3 of the article index, hence the duplications. Is this a clear cut case of using a canonical tag? Quite concerned this is going to have a negative impact on ranking, of course. Cheers Martin
Technical SEO | | Martin_S0