Noindexing Duplicate (non-unique) Content
-
When "noindex" is added to a page, does this ensure Google does not count page as part of their analysis of unique vs duplicate content ratio on a website? Example: I have a real estate business and I have noindex on MLS pages. However, is there a chance that even though Google does not index these pages, Google will still see those pages and think "ah, these are duplicate MLS pages, we are going to let those pages drag down value of entire site and lower ranking of even the unique pages". I like to just use "noindex, follow" on those MLS pages, but would it be safer to add pages to robots.txt as well and that should - in theory - increase likelihood Google will not see such MLS pages as duplicate content on my website?
On another note: I had these MLS pages indexed and 3-4 weeks ago added "noindex, follow". However, still all indexed and no signs Google is noindexing yet.....
-
Canonical pages don't have to be the same.
it will merge the content to look like one page.
Good luck
-
thx, Alan. I am already using re=next prev. However, that means all those paginated pages will still be indexed. I am adding the "noindex, follow" to page 2-n and only leaving page 1 indexed. Canonical: I don't think that will work. Each page in the series shows different properties, which means pages 1 - n are all different......
-
Ok if you use follow, that will be ok. but I would be looking at canonical or next previous first
-
I am trying to rank for those MLS duplicate alike pages, since that is what users want (they don't want my guide pages with lots of unique data, when they are searching "....for sale"). I will add unique data to page 1 of these MLS result pages. However, page 2-50 will NOT change (stay duplicate alike looking). If I have page 1-50 indexed, the unique content on page 1 may look like a drop in the ocean to G, and that is why I feel including "noindex, follow" on pages 2-50 may make sense.
-
That's correct.
you wont rank for duplicate pages, but unless most of your site is duplicate you wont be penalized
-
http://moz.com/blog/handling-duplicate-content-across-large-numbers-of-urls - that is Rand's whiteboard Friday a few weeks ago and I quote from the transcripts:
"So what happens, basically, is you get a page like this. I'm at BMO's Travel Gadgets. It's a great website where I can pick up all sorts of travel supplies and gear. The BMO camera 9000 is an interesting one because the camera's manufacturer requires that all websites which display the camera contain a lot of the same information. They want the manufacturer's description. They have specific photographs that they'd like you to use of the product. They might even have user reviews that come with those.
Because of this, a lot of the folks, a lot of the e-commerce sites who post this content find that they're getting trapped in duplicate content filters. Google is not identifying their content as being particularly unique. So they're sort of getting relegated to the back of the index, not ranking particularly well. They may even experience problems like Google Panda, which identifies a lot of this content and says, "Gosh, we've seen this all over the web and thousands of their pages, because they have thousands of products, are all exactly the same as thousands of other websites' other products."
-
There is nothing wrong with having duplicate content. It becomes a problem when you have a site that is all or almost all duplicate or thin content.
Having a page that is on every other competitors site will not harm you, you just may not rank for it.
but no indexing can cause lose of link juice as all links pointing to non indexed pages waste there link juice. Using noindex,follow will return most of this, but still there in no need to no-index
-
http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu-condos/ - this is an "MLS result page". That URL will soon have some statistics and it will be unique (I will include in index). All the paginated pages (2 to n) hardly has any unique content. It is great layout, users love it (ADWords campaign average user spends 9min and views 16 pages on site), but since it is MLS listings (shared amongst thousands of Realtors) Google will see "ah, these are duplicate pages, nothing unique". That is why I plan to index page 1 (the URL I list) but all paginated pages like: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu-condos/page-2) I will keep as "noindex, follow". Also, I want to rank for this URL: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-condos/ which is a sub-category of the first URL and 100% of the content is exactly the same as the 1st URL. So, I will focus on indexing just the 1st page and not the paginated pages. Unfortunately, G cannot see value in layout and design and I can see how keeping all pages indexed could hurt my site.
Would be happy to hear your thoughts on this. I launched site 4 months ago, more unique and quality content than 99% of other firms I am up against, yet nothing happens ranking wise yet. I suspect all these MLS pages is the issue. Time will show!
-
If you no index, I don't think Next Previous will have any affect.
If they are different then and if the keywords are all important why no-index?
-
Thx ,Philip. I am using already, but I thought adding "noindex, follow" to those paginated pages (on top of rel=next prev") will increase likelihood G will NOT see all those MLS result pages as a bunch of duplicate content. Page 1 may look thin, but with some statistical data I will soon include it is unique and that uniqueness may offset lack of indexed MLS result pages.....not sure if my reasoning is sound. Would be happy to hear if you feel differently
-
Sounds like you should actually be using rel=next and rel=prev.
More info here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
-
Hi Alan, thx for your comment. Let me give you an example and if you have a though that's be great:
- Condos on Island: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu-condos/
- Condos in City: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-condos/
- Condos in Region: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro-condos/
Properties on the result page for 3) are all in 2) and all properties within 2) is within 1). Furthermore, for each of those URL, the paginated pages (2 to n) are all different, since each property is different, so using canonical tags would not be accurate. 1 + 2 + 3 are all important keywords.
Here is what I am planning: add some unique content to the first page in the series for each of those URL and include just the 1st page in the serious to the index, but pages 2 to n I will keep "noindex, follow" on. Argument could be "your MLS result pages will look too thin and not rank" but the other way of looking at it is "with potentially 500 or more properties on each URL, a bit of stats on page 1 will not offset all the MLS duplicate data, so even though the page may look thin, only indexing page 1 is best way forward".
-
Remember that if you no-index pages, any link you have on your site pointing to those pages is wasting its link juice.
This looks like a job for Canonical tag
-
lol - good answer Philip. I hear you. What makes it difficult is the lack of crystal clear guidelines from search engines....it is almost like they don't know themselves and each case is sort of on a "what feels right" basis.....
-
Good find. I've never seen this part of the help section. Their resonating reason behind all of the examples seems to be "You don’t need to manually remove URLs; they will drop out naturally over time."
I have never had an issue, nor have I ever heard of anyone having an issue, removing URLs with the Removal Tool. I guess if you don't feel safe doing it, you can wait for Google's crawler to catch up, although it could take over a month. If you're comfortable waiting it out, have no reasons to rush it, AND feel like playing it super safe... you can disregard everything I've said
We all learn something new every day!
-
based on Google's own guidelines it appears to be a bad idea to use the removal tool under normal circumstances (which I believe my site falls under): https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1269119
It starts with: "The URL removal tool is intended for pages that urgently need to be removed—for example, if they contain confidential data that was accidentally exposed. Using the tool for other purposes may cause problems for your site."
-
thx, Philip. Most helpful. I will get on it
-
Yes. It will remove /page-52 and EVERYTHING that exists in /oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/. It will also remove everything that exists in /page-52/ (if anything). It trickles down as far as the folders in that directory will go.
**Go to Google search and type this in: **site:honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/
That will show you everything that's going to be removed from the index.
-
Yep, you got it.
You can think of it exactly like Windows folders, if that helps you stay focused. If you have C:\Website\folder1 and C:\Website\folder12. "noindexing" \folder1\ would leave \folder12\ alone because they're not in the same directory.
-
for some MLS result pages I have a BUNCH of pages and I want to remove from index with 1 click as opposed to having to include each paginated page. Example: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/page-52 I simply include"/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/" and that will ALSO remove from index this page: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/page-52 - is that correct?
-
removing directory "/oahu/waianae-makaha-condos/" will NOT remove "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/" because the silo "waianae-makaha" and "waianae-makaha-condos" are different.
HOWEVER,
removing directory " /oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/" will remove "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/page-2" because they share this silo "waianae-makaha"Is that correctly understood?
-
Yep. Just last week I had an entire website deindexed (on purpose, it's a staging website) by entering just / into the box and selecting directory. By the next morning the entire website was gone from the index
It works for folders/directories too. I've used it many times.
-
so I will remove directory for "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/" and that will ensure removal of "/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/page-2" as well?
-
thx, Philip. So you are saying if I use the directory option that will ensure the paginated pages will also be taken out of the index like this page: /oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/page-2
-
I'm not 100% sure Google will understand you if you leave off the slashes. I've always added them and have never had a problem, so you want to to type: /oahu/waianae-makaha-condos/
Typing that would NOT include the neighborhood URL, in your example. It will only remove everything that exists in the /waianae-makaha-condos/ folder (including that main category page itself).
edit >> To remove the neighborhood URL and everything in that folder as well, type /oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/ and select the option for "directory".
edit #2 >> I just want to add that you should be very careful with this. You don't want to use the directory option unless you're 100% sure there's nothing in that directory that you want to stay indexed.
-
thx. I have a URL like this for a REGION: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/waianae-makaha-condos/ and for a "NEIGHBORHOOD" I have this: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/waianae-makaha/maili-condos/
As you can see Region has "waianae-makaha-condos" directory, whereas the Neighborhood has "waianae-makaha" without the "condos" for that region directory part.
Question: when I go to GWT and remove can I simply type "oahu/waianae-makaha-condos" and select the directory option and that will ALSO exclude the neighborhood URL? OR, since the region part in the URL within the neighborhood URL is different I have to submit individually?
-
Yep! After you remove the URL or directory of URLs, there is a "Reinclude" button you can get to. You just need to switch your "Show:" view so it shows URLs removed. The default is to show URLs PENDING removal. Once they're removed, they will disappear from that view.
-
good one, Philip. Last BIG question: if I remove URL's from GWT, is it possible to "unremove" without issue? I am planning to index some of these MLS pages in the future when I have more unique content on.
-
When "noindex" is added to a page, does this ensure Google does not count page as part of their analysis of unique vs duplicate content ratio on a website? Yes, that will tell Google that you understand the pages don't belong in the index. They will not penalize your site for duplicate content if you're explicitly telling Google to noindex them.
Is there a chance that even though Google does not index these pages, Google will still see those pages and think "ah, these are duplicate MLS pages, we are going to let those pages drag down value of entire site and lower ranking of even the unique pages". No, there's no chance these will hurt you if they're set to noindex. That is exactly what the noindex tag is for. You're doing what Google wants you to do.
I like to just use "noindex, follow" on those MLS pages, but would it be safer to add pages to robots.txt as well and that should - in theory - increase likelihood Google will not see such MLS pages as duplicate content on my website? You could add them to your robots.txt but that won't increase your likelihood of Google not penalizing you because there is already no worry about being penalized for pages not being indexed.
On another note: I had these MLS pages indexed and 3-4 weeks ago added "noindex, follow". However, still all indexed and no signs Google is noindexing yet.....
Donna's advice is perfect here. Use the Remove URLs tool. Every time I've used the tool, Google has removed the URLs from the index in less than 12-24 hours. I of course made sure to have a noindex tag in place first. Just make sure you enter everything AFTER the TLD (.com, .net, etc) and nothing before it. Example: You'd want to ask Google to remove /mls/listing122 but not example.com/mls/listing122. The ladder will not work properly because Google automatically adds "example.com" to it (they just don't make this very clear). -
thx, Donna. My question was mainly around whether Google will NOT consider MLS pages as duplicate content when I place the "noindex" on. We can all guess, but does anyone have anything concrete on this, to make me understand reality of this. Can we with 90% certainty say "yes, if you place noindex on a duplicate content page, then Google will not consider that duplicate content, hence it will not count towards how Google views duplicate vs unique site content". This is the big question: If we are left in uncertainty, then only way forward may be to password protect such pages and not offer users without creating an account.....
Removal on GWT: I plan to index some of these MLS pages in the future (when I get more unique content on them) and I am concerned if once submitted to GWT for removal, then it is tough to get such pages indexed again.
-
Hi khi5,
I think excluding those MLS listings from your site using the robots.txt file would be over kill.
As I'm sure you well know, Google does what it wants. I think tagging the pages you don't want indexed with "noindex follow" AND adding them to the robots.txt file doesn't make the likelihood that Google will respect your wishes any higher. You might want to consider canonicalizing them though, so links to and bookmarks and shares of said pages get credited to your site.
As to how long it takes for Google to deindex said pages, it can take a very long time. In my experience, "a very long time" can run 6-8 months. You do have the option however, of using Google Webmaster Tools > Google Index > Remove URLs to ask to have them deindexed faster. Again, no guarantees that Google will do as you ask, but I've found them to be pretty responsive when I use the tool.
I'd love to hear if anyone else feels differently.
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
-
Possible duplicate content issue
Hi, Here is a rather detailed overview of our problem, any feedback / suggestions is most welcome. We currently have 6 sites targeting the various markets (countries) we operate in all websites are on one wordpress install but are separate sites in a multisite network, content and structure is pretty much the same barring a few regional differences. The UK site has held a pretty strong position in search engines the past few years. Here is where we have the problem. Our strongest page (from an organic point of view) has dropped off the search results completely for Google.co.uk, we've picked this up through a drop in search visibility in SEMRush, and confirmed this by looking at our organic landing page traffic in Google Analytics and Search Analytics in Search Console. Here are a few of the assumptions we've made and things we've checked: Checked for any Crawl or technical issues, nothing serious found Bad backlinks, no new spammy backlinks Geotarggetting, this was fine for the UK site, however the US site a .com (not a cctld) was not set to the US (we suspect this to be the issue, but more below) On-site issues, nothing wrong here - the page was edited recently which coincided with the drop in traffic (more below), but these changes did not impact things such as title, h1, url or body content - we replaced some call to action blocks from a custom one to one that was built into the framework (Div) Manual or algorithmic penalties: Nothing reported by search console HTTPs change: We did transition over to http at the start of june. The sites are not too big (around 6K pages) and all redirects were put in place. Here is what we suspect has happened, the https change triggered google to re-crawl and reindex the whole site (we anticipated this), during this process, an edit was made to the key page, and through some technical fault the page title was changed to match the US version of the page, and because geotargetting was not turned on for the US site, Google filtered out the duplicate content page on the UK site, there by dropping it off the index. What further contributes to this theory is that a search of Google.co.uk returns the US version of the page. With country targeting on (ie only return pages from the UK) that UK version of the page is not returned. Also a site: query from google.co.uk DOES return the Uk version of that page, but with the old US title. All these factors leads me to believe that its a duplicate content filter issue due to incorrect geo-targetting - what does surprise me is that the co.uk site has much more search equity than the US site, so it was odd that it choose to filter out the UK version of the page. What we have done to counter this is as follows: Turned on Geo targeting for US site Ensured that the title of the UK page says UK and not US Edited both pages to trigger a last modified date and so the 2 pages share less similarities Recreated a site map and resubmitted to Google Re-crawled and requested a re-index of the whole site Fixed a few of the smaller issues If our theory is right and our actions do help, I believe its now a waiting game for Google to re-crawl and reindex. Unfortunately, Search Console is still only showing data from a few days ago, so its hard to tell if there has been any changes in the index. I am happy to wait it out, but you can appreciate that some of snr management are very nervous given the impact of loosing this page and are keen to get a second opinion on the matter. Does the Moz Community have any further ideas or insights on how we can speed up the indexing of the site? Kind regards, Jason
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Clickmetrics0 -
Taken a canonical off a page to let it rank with new unique content - what more can I do?
A week ago, I took a canonical off of a page that was pointing to the homepage for a very big, generic search term for my brand as we felt that it could have been harming our rankings (as it wasn't a true canonical page). A week in and our rankings for the term have dropped 7 positions out of page 1 and the page we want to rank instead is nowhere to be seen. Do I hang fire? As such a big search term, it's affecting traffic, but I don't want to make any rash decisions. Here's a bit more info: For arguments sake, let's call the search term we're going after 'Boots', with the URL where the canonical was placed of /boots. The canonical went to the root domain as we sell, well... boots. At the time, the homepage was ranking for Boots on page 1 and we wanted to change this so that the Boots page ranked for that term... all logical right? We did the following: Took off mentions of Boots from meta on the homepage and made sure it was optimised for on the boots page. Took the canonical off of /boots. Used GSC to fetch & ask Google to recrawl "/boots". Resubmitted the sitemap. Do I hang fire on running back to the safety of ranking for boots on the homepage? Do I risk keyword cannibalisation by adding the search terms back to the homepage?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kelly_Edwards0 -
Can I use duplicate content in different US cities without hurting SEO?
So, I have major concerns with this plan. My company has hundreds of facilities located all over the country. Each facility has it's own website. We have a third party company working to build a content strategy for us. What they came up with is to create a bank of content specific to each service line. If/when any facility offers that service, they then upload the content for that service line to that facility website. So in theory, you might have 10-12 websites all in different cities, with the same content for a service. They claim "Google is smart, it knows its content all from the same company, and because it's in different local markets, it will still rank." My contention is that duplicate content is duplicate content, and unless it is "localize" it, Google is going to prioritize one page of it and the rest will get very little exposure in the rankings no matter where you are. I could be wrong, but I want to be sure we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot with this strategy, because it is a major major undertaking and too important to go off in the wrong direction. SEO Experts, your help is genuinely appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MJTrevens1 -
Removing duplicate content
Due to URL changes and parameters on our ecommerce sites, we have a massive amount of duplicate pages indexed by google, sometimes up to 5 duplicate pages with different URLs. 1. We've instituted canonical tags site wide. 2. We are using the parameters function in Webmaster Tools. 3. We are using 301 redirects on all of the obsolete URLs 4. I have had many of the pages fetched so that Google can see and index the 301s and canonicals. 5. I created HTML sitemaps with the duplicate URLs, and had Google fetch and index the sitemap so that the dupes would get crawled and deindexed. None of these seems to be terribly effective. Google is indexing pages with parameters in spite of the parameter (clicksource) being called out in GWT. Pages with obsolete URLs are indexed in spite of them having 301 redirects. Google also appears to be ignoring many of our canonical tags as well, despite the pages being identical. Any ideas on how to clean up the mess?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
News sites & Duplicate content
Hi SEOMoz I would like to know, in your opinion and according to 'industry' best practice, how do you get around duplicate content on a news site if all news sites buy their "news" from a central place in the world? Let me give you some more insight to what I am talking about. My client has a website that is purely focuses on news. Local news in one of the African Countries to be specific. Now, what we noticed the past few months is that the site is not ranking to it's full potential. We investigated, checked our keyword research, our site structure, interlinking, site speed, code to html ratio you name it we checked it. What we did pic up when looking at duplicate content is that the site is flagged by Google as duplicated, BUT so is most of the news sites because they all get their content from the same place. News get sold by big companies in the US (no I'm not from the US so cant say specifically where it is from) and they usually have disclaimers with these content pieces that you can't change the headline and story significantly, so we do have quite a few journalists that rewrites the news stories, they try and keep it as close to the original as possible but they still change it to fit our targeted audience - where my second point comes in. Even though the content has been duplicated, our site is more relevant to what our users are searching for than the bigger news related websites in the world because we do hyper local everything. news, jobs, property etc. All we need to do is get off this duplicate content issue, in general we rewrite the content completely to be unique if a site has duplication problems, but on a media site, im a little bit lost. Because I haven't had something like this before. Would like to hear some thoughts on this. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 360eight-SEO
Chris Captivate0 -
Penalised for duplicate content, time to fix?
Ok, I accept this one is my fault but wondering on time scales to fix... I have a website and I put an affiliate store on it, using merchant datafeeds in a bid to get revenue from the site. This was all good, however, I forgot to put noindex on the datafeed/duplicate content pages and over a period of a couple of weeks the traffic to the site died. I have since nofollowed or removed the products but some 3 months later my site still will not rank for the keywords it was ranking for previously. It will not even rank if I type in the sites' name (bright tights). I have searched for the name using bright tights, "bright tights" and brighttights but none of them return the site anywhere. I am guessing that I have been hit with a drop x place penalty by Google for the duplicate content. What is the easiest way around this? I have no warning about bad links or the such. Is it worth battling on trying to get the domain back or should I write off the domain, buy a new one and start again but minus the duplicate content? The goal of having the duplicate content store on the site was to be able to rank the category pages in the store which had unique content on so there were no problems with that which I could foresee. Like Amazon et al, the categories would have lists of products (amongst other content) and you would click through to the individual product description - the duplicate page. Thanks for reading
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Grumpy_Carl0 -
What is the best way to allow content to be used on other sites for syndication without taking the chance of duplicate content filters
Cookstr appears to be syndicating content to shape.com and mensfitness.com a) They integrate their data into partner sites with an attribution back to their site and skinned it with the partners look. b) they link the image back to their image hosted on cookstr c) The page does not have microformats or as much data as their own page does so their own page is better SEO. Is this the best strategy or is there something better they could be doing to safely allow others to use our content, we don't want to share the content if we're going to get hit for a duplicate content filter or have another site out rank us with our own data. Thanks for your help in advance! their original content page: http://www.cookstr.com/recipes/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta their syndicated content pages: http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta0 -
Duplicate content - canonical vs link to original and Flash duplication
Here's the situation for the website in question: The company produces printed publications which go online as a page turning Flash version, and as a separate HTML version. To complicate matters, some of the articles from the publications get added to a separate news section of the website. We want to promote the news section of the site over the publications section. If we were to forget the Flash version completely, would you: a) add a canonical in the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? b) add a link in the footer of the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? c) both of the above? d) something else? What if we add the Flash version into the mix? As Flash still isn't as crawlable as HTML should we noindex them? Is HTML content duplicated in Flash as big an issue as HTML to HTML duplication?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0