Duplicate Title tags even with rel=canonical
-
Hello,
We were having duplicate content in our blog (a replica of each post automatically was done by the CMS), until we recently implemented a rel=canonical tag to all the duplicate posts (some 5 weeks ago).
So far, no duplicate content were been found, but we are still getting duplicate title tags, though the rel=canonical is present.
Any idea why is this the case and what can we do to solve it?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Tej Luchmun
-
Has this ever been done? Would be very handy.
-
Hi Sean,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Indeed having the rel=canonical pointing to the wrong page would be another issue. What David Lee suggested me is using the rel=canonical on both the original post and the duplicate post. This can be set programmatically instead of the ignore button.
But surely, the ignore button would be much more easier, in some situations. Please keep us update once this ignore feature has been implement.
Thanks again for your help.
Tej Luchmun
-
Hi Sheena,
Yes, Moz Crawl Diagnostics Report is showing duplicate title tag for the content that already have a rel=canonical tag.
I contacted them, and they suggested that i should include the canonical tag on the duplicate and original post, where both tags are pointing to the original post.
I have not yet tested it out, but hopefully, this should solve the issue.
Thanks again for your help.
Tej Luchmun
-
Thanks a lot Karl, indeed with the canonical tag, neither the title nor the content becomes a duplicate.
It's just the MOZ crawl issue that raised the alarm.
Thanks again.
Tej Luchmun
-
Hi Tej,
Thanks for writing us on this! So Sheena and Karl are both correct. Although, an REL Canonical may solve the issue with Google it is still technically a duplicate title tag. When designing the tool we found that having the crawler pick up the REL Canonicals can be problematic for a coding and SEO standpoint. It is often possible that an REL Canonical will be directed to an incorrect page and since our crawler is so literal it would have issues recognizing the canonical was bad.
Our product staff is aware of this and they hope to get to a place where we provide an ignore feature, so if you feel that the tag was implemented correctly you can select ignore and we will no longer report that issue for that page.
I know that this is not ideal for many customers, but hopefully our solution will be comprehensive enough to encapsulate many of the solutions SEO's have found for these issues.
Hopefully this helps and if you have any other questions or concerns let me know.
Have a great day!
-
Do you mean that your Moz Analytics Crawl Diagnostics Report is showing duplicate titles for pages that have rel=canonical? If so, this is something I noticed a few months ago & brought up to the Moz team. I believe it's something they're working to implement/somehow allow us to 'check off' pages in the report that we've already implemented a solution for. Also, if this is your situation, I think you should add your experience / request to Moz's feature request forum.
I hope this helps!
-
Technically it is still a duplicate title tag, you just won't be getting penalised for it that's all.
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
-
Duplicating content from manufacturer for client site and using canonical reference.
We manage content for many clients in the same industry, and many of them wish to keep their customers on their individualized websites (understandably). In order to do this, we have duplicated content in part from the manufacturers' pages for several "models" on the client's sites. We have put in a Canonical reference at the start of the content directing back to the manufacturer's page where we duplicated some of the content. We have only done a handful of pages while we figure out the canonical reference potential issue. So, my questions are: Is this necessary? Does this hurt, help or not do anything SEO-wise for our ranking of the site? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moz1admin1 -
Is there a way to rel = canonical only part of a page?
Hi guys: I'm doing SEO for a boat accessories store, and for instance they have marine AC systems, many of them, and while the part number, number of BTUs, voltage, and accessories change on some models, the description stays exactly the same across the board on many of them...people often search on Google by model number, and I worry that if I put rel = canonical, then the result for that specific model they're looking for won't come up, just the one that everything is being redirected to. (and people do this much more than entering a site nowadays and searching by product model, it's easier). Excuse my ignorance on this stuff, I'm good with link building and content creation, but the behind-the-scenes aspects... not so much: Can I "rel=canonical" only part of the page of the repeat models (the long description)? so people can still search by model number, and reach the model they are looking for? Am I misunderstanding something here about rel=canonical (Interesting thing, I rank very high for these pages with tons of repeat descriptions, number one in many places... but wonder if google attributes a sort of "across the site" penalty for the repeated content... but wouldn't ranking number 1 for these pages mean nothing's wrong?. Thanks)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DavidCiti1 -
Canonical Rel .uk and .au to .com site?
Hi guys, we have a client whose main site is .com but who has a .co.uk and a com.au site promoting the same company/brand. Each site is verified locally with a local address and phone but when we create content for the sites that is universal, should I rel=canonical those pages on the .co.uk and .com.au sites to the .com site? I saw a post from Dr. Pete that suggests I should as he outlines pretty closely the situation we're in: "The ideal use of cross-domain rel=canonical would be a situation where multiple sites owned by the same entity share content, and that content is useful to the users of each individual site." Thanks in advance for your insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wcbuckner0 -
Is all duplication of HTML title content bad?
In light of Hummingbird and that HTML titles are the main selling point in SERPs, is my approach to keyword rich HTML titles bad? Where possible I try to include the top key phrase to descripe a page and then a second top keyphrase describing what the company/ site as a whole is or does. For instance an estate agents site could consist of HTML title such as this Buy Commercial Property in Birmingham| Commercial Estate Agents Birmingham Commercial Property Tips | Commercial Estate Agents In order to preserve valuable characters I have also been omitting brand names other than on the home page... is this also poor form?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SoundinTheory0 -
Duplicate or not ?
Hello, I have an ecommerce website with products I have many categories and more products are associated with several categories (I can not do otherwise). Urls of each product are not duplicated because I have : http://www.site.com/product-name However, my breadcrumb varies depending on the way. I have for example: If I go through the A section and sub-section Aa, my breadcrumb will:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | android_lyon
Home> Section A> subheading Aa> product 1 If >> I go through the B section and sub-section Ca, my breadcrumb will:
Home> Section B> subheading Ca> product 1 My question: is that with only a breadcrumb different for my product sheets, there is a duplication? My opinion ...... not because the url of the page is unique. Thank you for your feedback. Sorry for the english, i'm french 😉 D.0 -
Duplicate Title Tags & Duplication Meta Description after 301 Redirect
Today, I was checking my Google webmaster tools and found 16,000 duplicate title tags and duplicate meta description. I have investigate for this issue and come to know about as follow. I have changed URL structure for 11,000 product pages on 3rd July, 2012 and set up 301 redirect from old product pages to new product pages. Google have started to crawl my new product pages but, De-Indexing of old URLs are quite slower. That's why I found this issue on Google webmaster tools. Can anyone suggest me, How can I increase ratio of De-Indexing for old URLs? OR any other suggestions? How much time Google will take to De-Index old URLs from web search?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
Is this structure valid for a canonical tag?
Working on a site, and noticed their canonical tags follow the structure: //www.domain.com/article They cited their reason for this as http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt. Does anyone know if Google will recognize this as a valid canonical? Are there any issues with using this as a the canonical?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Duplicate page content and Duplicate page title errors
Hi, I'm new to SeoMoz and to this forum. I've started a new campaign on my site and got back loads of error. Most of them are Duplicate page content and Duplicate page title errors. I know I have some duplicate titles but I don't have any duplicate content. I'm not a web developer and not so expert but I have the impression that the crawler is following all my internal links (Infact I have also plenty of warnings saying "Too many on-page links". Do you think this is the cause of my errors? Should I implement the nofollow on all internal links? I'm working with Joomla. Thanks a lot for your help Marco
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marcodublin0