Glossary index and individual pages create duplicate content. How much might this hurt me?
-
I've got a glossary on my site with an index page for each letter of the alphabet that has a definition. So the M section lists every definition (the whole definition).
But each definition also has its own individual page (and we link to those pages internally so the user doesn't have to hunt down the entire M page).
So I definitely have duplicate content ... 112 instances (112 terms). Maybe it's not so bad because each definition is just a short paragraph(?)
How much does this hurt my potential ranking for each definition? How much does it hurt my site overall?
Am I better off making the individual pages no-index? or canonicalizing them?
-
Thanks, Ryan!
-
From here: http://moz.com/messages/write to Dirk's username: DC1611. There used to be a button in profiles, but it looks like it got shuffled in the redesign.
-
PM? Does Moz offer that function?
-
It's a bit difficult to assess which of the pages is more important without knowing the site. Having a lot of content is good - but if the only link between the content is that they all start with the same letter it could be pretty weak or pretty strong depending on the situation:
I'll give 2 examples :
Suppose that the index is on First names starting with S - in this case this page is a valuable one because a lot of people are searching for it - and the search volume is potentially bigger than the number of people that are looking for first name steve (= one specific item)
Suppose the index is about Illnesses starting with S - in this case the index page has very little value for a searcher, because people are searching illnesses based the symptoms -the fact that illnesses start with S doesn't link them together.
It could be helpful if you send me the actual url's via PM if you don't want to disclose them here.
rgds
Dirk
-
Oops. Sorry. Poor wording there. Meant to say ...
Definitely not concerned that the M index page and the M* definition** page BOTH show up in the search results.
We definitely do want at least one of the pages to not only show up in the rankings, but to rank highly. I'm guessing the M index page would actually have a chance of ranking high because it will have so many long tails related to our short-tail.
But it would seem weird to put a no-index on the M* definition** page ... since we have multiple internal links to those pages.
Thanks again for your patience. Really appreciate the feedback.
Steve
-
That's exactly what I am saying - your index page with all the definitions is from Google perspective completely different from the detailed definition page (the first one being much richer in content than the 2nd one). If getting these pages ranked is the least of concerns - you can keep it as it is. If you want to play on the safe side, you can put a noindex on the index page.
rgds,
Dirk
-
Just having a bit of a dilemma. Trying to make it easier for people who come to the glossary and then go to ... say ... the M page. Don't have to keep clicking away to see the definitions. Result: More user-friendly
But we also want to have a very specific definition page so that when we link from an article to the definition, the user doesn't have to see all of the M definitions. Result: More user-friendly.
Definitely not concerned that both the M index page and the M* definition** page show up in the search results. That would actually be swell. Just more concerned that our overall site ranking or domain authority will somehow suffer.
If you're saying that the M index page and the M* page** are dramatically different (because the M index page is much, much longer) and so I shouldn't worry, that's great. (Hope that's what you're saying.)
Thanks!
-
Hi,
As far as I understand it's not really a question of duplicate content in the SEO meaning. Although all the definitions starting with M are on the M-index page this page is quite different to the pages that contain the individual definitions of the terms that start with M.
A problem on many sites is that the pages that only contain the explanation of one term are very light in terms of content, and that the page with is listing all these terms is generally not very interesting from a user (and search perspective). I don't know your site, so difficult to assess if this is the case
You could make the index page noindex/follow - and just list the terms, linking to the explanation pages. For the explanation pages which are probably the most interesting for users & search engines: try to enrich them by adding more content, like links to articles on your site that use the term, or have more information on the term
Hope this helps,
Dirk
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
-
Content Strategy/Duplicate Content Issue, rel=canonical question
Hi Mozzers: We have a client who regularly pays to have high-quality content produced for their company blog. When I say 'high quality' I mean 1000 - 2000 word posts written to a technical audience by a lawyer. We recently found out that, prior to the content going on their blog, they're shipping it off to two syndication sites, both of which slap rel=canonical on them. By the time the content makes it to the blog, it has probably appeared in two other places. What are some thoughts about how 'awful' a practice this is? Of course, I'm arguing to them that the ranking of the content on their blog is bound to be suffering and that, at least, they should post to their own site first and, if at all, only post to other sites several weeks out. Does anyone have deeper thinking about this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Daaveey0 -
Removing pages from index
My client is running 4 websites on ModX CMS and using the same database for all the sites. Roger has discovered that one of the sites has 2050 302 redirects pointing to the clients other sites. The Sitemap for the site in question includes 860 pages. Google Webmaster Tools has indexed 540 pages. Roger has discovered 5200 pages and a Site: query of Google reveals 7200 pages. Diving into the SERP results many of the pages indexed are pointing to the other 3 sites. I believe there is a configuration problem with the site because the other sites when crawled do not have a huge volume of redirects. My concern is how can we remove from Google's index the 2050 pages that are redirecting to the other sites via a 302 redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tinbum0 -
I've seen and heard alot about city-specific landing pages for businesses with multiple locations, but what about city-specific landing pages for cities nearby that you aren't actually located in? Is it ok to create landing pages for nearby cities?
I asked here https://www.google.com/moderator/#7/e=adbf4 but figured out ask the Moz Community also! Is it actually best practice to create landing pages for nearby cities if you don't have an actual address there? Even if your target customers are there? For example, If I am in Miami, but have a lot of customers who come from nearby cities like Fort Lauderdale is it okay to create those LP's? I've heard this described as best practice, but I'm beginning to question whether Google sees it that way.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley2 -
Drop in indexed pages!
Hi everybody! I've been working on http://thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/ for a little while now. Until recently, everything was great - good rankings for the key terms of 'bird hides' and 'pond dipping platforms'. However, rankings have tanked over the past few days. I can't point my finger at it yet, but a site:thewilddeckcompany.co.uk search shows only three pages have been indexed. There's only 10 on the site, and it was fine beforehand. Any advice would be much appreciated,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO0 -
Duplicate Page Content - Shopify
Moz reports that there are 1,600+ pages on my site (Sportiqe.com) that qualify as Duplicate Page Content. The website sells licensed apparel, causing shirts to go into multiple categories (ie - LA Lakers shirts would be categorized in three areas: Men's Shirts, LA Lakers Shirts and NBA Shirts)It looks like "tags" are the primary cause behind the duplicate content issues: // Collection Tags_Example: : http://www.sportiqe.com/collections/la-clippers-shirts (Preferred URL): http://www.sportiqe.com/collections/la-clippers-shirts/la-clippers (URL w/ tag): http://sportiqe.com/collections/la-clippers-shirts/la-clippers (URL w/ tag, w/o the www.): http://sportiqe.com/collections/all-products/clippers (Different collection, w/ tag and same content)// Blog Tags_Example: : http://www.sportiqe.com/blogs/sportiqe/7902801-dispatch-is-back: http://www.sportiqe.com/blogs/sportiqe/tagged/elias-fundWould it make sense to do 301 redirects for the collection tags and use the Parameter Tool in Webmaster Tools to exclude blog post tags from their crawl? Or, is there a possible solution with the rel=cannonical tag?Appreciate any insight from fellow Shopify users and the Moz community.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | farmiloe0 -
Can videos be considered duplicate content?
I have a page that ranks 5 and to get a rich snippet I'm thinking of adding a relevant video to the page. Thing is, the video is already on another page which ranks for this keyword... but only at position 20. As it happens the page the video is on is the more important page for other keywords, so I won't remove it. Will having the same video on two pages be considered a duplicate?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Brocberry0 -
Why is a page with a noindex code being indexed?
I was looking through the pages indexed by Google (with site:www.mywebsite.com) and one of the results was a page with "noindex, follow" in the code that seems to be a page generated by blog searches. Any ideas why it seems to be indexed or how to de-index it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theLotter0 -
Duplicate Content Question
My understanding of duplicate content is that if two pages are identical, Google selects one for it's results... I have a client that is literally sharing content real-time with a partner...the page content is identical for both sites, and if you update one page, teh otehr is updated automatically. Obviously this is a clear cut case for canonical link tags, but I'm cuious about something: Both sites seem to show up in search results but for different keywords...I would think one domain would simply win out over the other, but Google seems to show both sites in results. Any idea why? Also, could this duplicate content issue be hurting visibility for both sites? In other words, can I expect a boost in rankings with the canonical tags in place? Or will rankings remain the same?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AmyLB0