SEOMoz says i have errors but goole webmaster doesnt show them - which one is right ?
-
I have about 350 websites all created in farcry 4.0 cms platform. When i do a site crawl using any seo tool ( seomoz, raven, screaming frog) it comes back telling me I have duplicate titles, description and content for a bunch of my pages. The pages are the same page its just that the crawl is showing the object Id and the friendly URL which is autocreated in the CMS as different pages.
EXAMPLE these are the samge page but are recognised as different in SEOMOZ crawl test and therefore flagged as having duplicate title tags and content ...
<colgroup span="1"><col style="width: 488pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 23771;" span="1" width="650"></colgroup>
|www.westendautos.com.au/go/latest-news-and-specials
<colgroup span="1"><col style="width: 488pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 23771;" span="1" width="650"></colgroup>
| www.westendautos.com.au/index.cfm?objectid=9CF82BBD-9B98-B545-33BC644C0FA74C8E ||
GOOGLE WEBMASTER however does not show me these errors ? It shows no errors at all.
Now i believe i can fix this by chucking in a rel=canonical at the top of each page ? (a big job over 350 sites) But even so - my problem is that the website developers are telling me that SEOMOZ and all the other tools are wrong - that google will see these the way it should, that the object ID's would not get indexed ( although i have seen at least one object id show up in the serps.)
Do i believe the developers and trust that google has it sorted or go through the process of hassling the developers to get a rel=canonical added to all the pages?
(the issue sees my homepage as about 4 different pages www.domain.com/ www.domain.com/home /index AND object id.
-
No i have the webmaster access and its not done there. 345 ??? wow is that coding stuff ?
-
I had a think about what your developers said about not erring in Google WMT, and I there is some truth in that as I assume they have exclude the parameters in WMT. But this is the poor mans way of fixing such things. You need to do this at the source for all search engines.
That was probably the most urgent problem the site had, but all up I found 345 violations all up.
If you want me to send you a detailed report email me mosley@thatsit.net.au if you want any help with IIS I can give you some help. -
I have 350 franchise type businesses. Independant but have the marketing etc done for them I inhertied them this way. I am adressing the www to non www canonical issue seperately to this 'friendly url + objectID" canoncal issue. Yes all 350 of them were pretty much duplicates and i am slowly working towards them all being fixed and individualised. I know I can fix it by putting in a rel=canonical but I am looking for some support so that when i go back to the developers they cant just fob me o with some excuse that i dont understand. I have a real hard time to get some of these pages to rank and i sincerely beleive that it is no in my content ( which is in my control ) but coding errors which are holding some of them back ( which is somewhat out of my control) i had to push just to be able to write a page title that wasnt automatically used as the paragraph heading on the page 0_o
Oh and i have addressed the domain canonical via webmaster, which obviously doesnt solve ii for bing - but thanks to the awesome tutorial on your site http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-domain-name-issue I know what i have to ask the developers for
now ! I do have access to the IIS but with onlylimited knowledge about the whole set up I am afraid of screwing something up - but that shows that with the right plugin it EASY to fix !! thank you so much !!
-
I did find out, his web sites are a chain of auto shops called Repco here in australia
-
I would also like to ask why you have 350 sites,
I was going to ask that too but didn't want to seem like a wise guy if the OP has 700 people workin' on 'em.
-
No CMS is perfect, but you can cetainly build a site free from any of these issues, i get a perfect score on every site i build using teh Bing SEO Toolkit, wich finds ever viollation that bing finds.
-
As one assuie to anouther, your deveopers are just not up to it.
I scaned your site, with software from bing that sees the exact same violations as bing.
and for a small site it has a lot of issues.
here is the same error SEOMoz foundThe page with URL "http://www.westendautos.com.au/index.cfm?objectid=9CF82BBD-9B98-B545-33BC644C0FA74C8E" can also be accessed by using URL "http://www.westendautos.com.au/go/latest-news-and-specials".
Search engines identify unique pages by using URLs. When a single page can be accessed by using any one of multiple URLs, a search engine assumes that there are multiple unique pages. Use a single URL to reference a page to prevent dilution of page relevance. You can prevent dilution by following a standard URL format.more on teh error http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-multiple-canonical-formats
You problems go deeper still, you have domain name canonical issues, this is a big one and a obvious one your developers should of not let get by
if your site can be resched by www and non www without 301 redirecting the SE will see the sites as 2 seperate sites, and you rank will be split
I would also like to ask why you have 350 sites, are you saying they are duplicates of this one www.westendautos.com.au
-
No tool is 100% accurate in the SEO world.
If Google webmaster tool doesn't detect any error today that doesn't mean there is no error at all.
rel=canonical is a perfect solution and go for it.
-
I agree with you about Joomla, It is awful in my experience for creating duplicate content issues.
-
No big deal, these URLs can be generated if you are using a non SEO friendly CMS. This happens to me when I was using Joomla (Joomla is not bad but It didn’t worked out well for me!).
The simple solution to this is download the CSV from screaming frog and go to these pages and set rel=canonical to the page so that Google if crawling, knows what page contains the original data that crawlers should be looking for.
On the other hand it’s a good idea to look in to some good SEO friendly CMS.
-
...my problem is that the website developers are telling me that SEOMOZ and all the other tools are wrong...
Trust developers/designers for making things look good - if you like their style.... but when it comes to SEO you need to have your head examined if you are going to listen to your developer instead of trusting SEOmoz.
Here's something every professional SEO knows.... developers/designers generate a lot of business for SEOs (and lose a lot of money for webmasters) because they don't understand search engines, change all of your URLs, hide text because it stinks up their design, want to make your entire site in images, create navigation bars that spiders can't crawl, allow session id's to generate duplicate content and suck up all of your linkjuice.... I could go on and on here... You must be very careful and watch what they are doing - closely.
Do i believe the developers and trust that google has it sorted or go through the process of hassling the developers to get a rel=canonical added to all the pages?
lol.... I don't think that "hassling" is a very good word. I would either be kicking their asses or firing them and getting a different developer who understand who owns the website!!!
Sometimes you have to assert yourself when somebody is going to screw up one of your websites. If they were trashing one of my good sites I would exert my authority as owner of the site. If it is a choice between my site and their opinion... they lose swiftly.
Now i believe i can fix this by chucking in a rel=canonical at the top of each page ?
Great, you know what to do.
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
-
18 404 errors on pages that are actually fine.
Hi, I just used the compain tool to look for errors on my site and it appears that seomoz crawler finds 18 404 errors on pages that are fine in my good. I do proceed with a URL rewritting on those pages, but navigation is fine. Some of the pages are: http://cassplumbingtampabay.com/about-us http://cassplumbingtampabay.com/commercial-services http://cassplumbingtampabay.com/drain-cleaning-repair ... Does anybody know what's going on?
Moz Pro | | acas110 -
Functionality of SEOmoz crawl page reports
I am trying to find a way to ask SEOmoz staff to answer this question because I think it is a functionality question so I checked SEOmoz pro resources. I also have had no responses in the Forum too it either. So here it is again. Thanks much for your consideration! Is it possible to configure the SEOMoz Rogerbot error-finding bot (that make the crawl diagnostic reports) to obey the instructions in the individual page headers and http://client.com/robots.txt file? For example, there is a page at http://truthbook.com/quotes/index.cfm month=5&day=14&year=2007 that has – in the header -
Moz Pro | | jimmyzig
<meta name="robots" content="noindex"> </meta name="robots" content="noindex"> This page is themed Quote of the Day page and is duplicated twice intentionally at http://truthbook.com/quotes/index.cfm?month=5&day=14&year=2004 and also at http://truthbook.com/quotes/index.cfm?month=5&day=14&year=2010 but they all have <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> in them. So Google should not see them as duplicates right. Google does not in Webmaster Tools.</meta name="robots" content="noindex"> So it should not be counted 3 times? But it seems to be? How do we gen a report of the actual pages shown in the report as dups so we can check? We do not believe Google sees it as a duplicate page but Roger appears too. Similarly, one can use http://truthbook.com/contemplative_prayer/ , here also the http://truthbook.com/robots.txt tells Google to stay clear. Yet we are showing thousands of dup. page content errors when Google Webmaster tools as shown only a few hundred configured as described. Anyone? Jim0 -
I am trying to find inbound links for one of my site urls. My question is does SEOMoz able to track all internal links as the Open Site Explorer shows 0 internal links?
It shows 0 internal links when I am pretty sure we have multiple internal links.Should we use absolute urls or relative urls for internal links?
Moz Pro | | SulekhaUSLLC0 -
What is the correlation between the SEOMOZ PR number and where my site is showing up in an organic search?
For years, our company placed 3 or 4 in an organic search on Google for the keyword I am inquiring about. A couple of months ago, we went down to number 15. I then subscribed to SEOMOZ and began a concerted effort to improve our ranking for this keyword. Slowly, our listing came up higher in searches and on our reports- back onto the first page #8. Our weekly SEOMOZ reports reflected this improvement, but then it dropped down again to page 2, #11. My most recent report, this week, gave us a PR 8 for this keyword, but our listing is showing upon page 2, #11. I do have my personal search and browser history disabled. I am unclear as to why there is this discrepancy.
Moz Pro | | gfiedel0 -
help with the inbound links side of seomoz
Hi Can somebody help with the inbound links tool of seomoz, can you point me in the direction of how it works and the best practices to get the most from it. I know i have a lot more inbound links to the site in my campaign but its shows for example 114 links but when i click on show more it only shows 3 . am i doing something wrong? Any help and advice from how people use it , what for and what is best practice thanks.
Moz Pro | | Bristolweb0 -
About Duplicate Content found by SEOMOZ... that is not duplicate
Hi folks, I am hunting for duplicate content based on SEOMOZ great tool for that 🙂 I have some pages that are mentioned as duplicate but I cant say why. They are video page. The content is minimalistic so I guess it might be because all the navigation is the same but for instance http://www.nuxeo.com/en/resource-center/Videos/Nuxeo-World-2010/Nuxeo-World-2010-Presentation-Thierry-Delprat-CTO and http://www.nuxeo.com/en/resource-center/Videos/Nuxeo-World-2010/Nuxeo-World-2010-Presentation-Cheryl-McKinnon-CMO are mentioned as duplicate. Any idea? Is it hurting? Cheers,
Moz Pro | | nuxeo0 -
SEOmoz API - Links and Anchor Text Calls
Hi, I'm testing out the SEOmoz API - however I'm stuggling to understand the use of the Cols parameter within the "anchor-text" method. I've looped through increasing numbers of "Cols" for a standard query and there just seems to be no logical pattern.
Moz Pro | | AlexThomas
** - Could someone please enlighten me as to how this works?** E.g. of results for query: http://lsapi.seomoz.com/linkscape/anchor-text/www.seomoz.org/?Scope=term_to_page&Sort=domains_linking_page&Cols=1 1Array ( [0] => Array ( [aturid] => 86128451138 ) [1] => Array ( [aturid] => 86128451144 ) [2] => Array ( [aturid] => 86128451131 ) ) 2Array ( [0] => Array ( [atut] => seomoz ) [1] => Array ( [atut] => seomoz.org ) [2] => Array ( [atut] => seo ) ) 3Array ( [0] => Array ( [aturid] => 86128451138 [atut] => seomoz ) [1] => Array ( [aturid] => 86128451144 [atut] => seomoz.org ) [2] => Array ( [aturid] => 86128451131 [atut] => seo ) ) 4Array ( [0] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 ) [1] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 ) [2] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 ) ) 5Array ( [0] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [aturid] => 86128451138 ) [1] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [aturid] => 86128451144 ) [2] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [aturid] => 86128451131 ) ) 6Array ( [0] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [atut] => seomoz ) [1] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [atut] => seomoz.org ) [2] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [atut] => seo ) ) 7Array ( [0] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [aturid] => 86128451138 [atut] => seomoz ) [1] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [aturid] => 86128451144 [atut] => seomoz.org ) [2] => Array ( [atui] => 38845159274 [aturid] => 86128451131 [atut] => seo ) ) 8Array ( [0] => Array ( [atuiu] => 1 ) [1] => Array ( [atuiu] => 1 ) [2] => Array ( [atuiu] => 0 ) ) 9Array ( [0] => Array ( [atuiu] => 1 [aturid] => 86128451138 ) [1] => Array ( [atuiu] => 1 [aturid] => 86128451144 ) [2] => Array ( [atuiu] => 0 [aturid] => 86128451131 ) ) 10Array ( [0] => Array ( [atuiu] => 1 [atut] => seomoz ) [1] => Array ( [atuiu] => 1 [atut] => seomoz.org ) [2] => Array ( [atuiu] => 0 [atut] => seo ) ) Links API: Similar confusion here for:
"TargetCols"
"SourceCols"
"LinkCols" The description here http://apiwiki.seomoz.org/w/page/13991141/Links API - is a bit vague It appears that the links API spits out everything anyway - that one's less of an issue. So... could anyone explain how the Anchor-text API parameter Cols works?? Cheers!0 -
Site is penalized yet Google WTC and SEOMOZ says it's ok!
My first question on this community.. A high traffic site of mine has been severely hit for over two months. I took a look at GWTC and noticed a lot of suggestions on the HTML suggestions tab, where I believed that one or a combination of these errors/notices might been causing the penalty. At the moment of typing GWTC shows no HTML suggestions and minor meaningless crawl errors. Checking on SEOMOZ reported issues, I see zero errors except for a high number of duplicate page titles resulting from tag pages being accessible in the same tag title in paginations (tag.html?page=x) which can be fixed easily by using rel=canonical but I just know it can't cause such penalty. For reported warnings, site has a decent amount of title element being too long and missing meta tag description tags. I have been very active in the past with 301 inner pages of the site to make pages URLs as unique as possible and results were great, but that was long time ago before taking the hit. The penalty the site suffers from is zero rankings for newly added contents and old contents as well. It has also lost all rankings for its money terms. Site is not banned and still ranking top for its name which is a good thing. I am not sure where else I should be looking and will appreciate any good advices. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | HossamHossny0