Is there an easier way from the server to prevent duplicate page content?
-
I know that using either 301 or 302 will fix the problem of duplicate page content. My question would be; is there an easier way of preventing duplicate page content when it's an issue with the URL. For example:
URL: http://example.com
My guess would be like it says here, that it's a setting issue with the server.
If anyone has some pointers on how to prevent this from occurring, it would be greatly appreciated.
-
I have seen tons of duplicate content errors in the SEO Moz REport. The pages that I have are same but the sidebar ads and others are dynamic based on the store they are coming from. So we send store name as query string.http://www.appymall.com/apps/numberland-learn-numbers-with-montessori%20&store=Appy-back-2-school if you look at teh source code, we defined the canonicalURL. The system is still calling these duplicates. Can you help address this issue? What we are doing wroong?I did checked the on-page keyword tool and it has green check after
Canonical URL Tag Usage
-
Thanks. Did the server-level change, works great, the pages are having no problems resolving canonically, and the changes have been accounted for in Google and Bing's webmaster data since the 24th. Only, one other thing also happened at that same time: my site lurched downward another notch.
This is what usually happens when I do something that's been recommended by SEOs.
-
I've never done one of these yet so I will Google how to do it. I'm waiting to find out the type of server it is.
-
Yes, a 301-redirect is almost always a server-level directive. It's not a tag or HTML element. You can create them with code (in the header of the page), but that's typically harder and only for special cases.
-
Okay, so the code variant will rely on the type of server?
-
If that's the case Dr. Pete, that saves me from having to add the tag to 51 pages. I already have one on the homepage. Thank you.
-
As long as the tactic you use returns a proper 301, there's really no way that's better than any other. Ryan's approach works perfectly well for Apache-hosted sites.
-
In most cases, I don't find sitewide canonical tags to really be necessary, but if they're done right, they can't hurt. The trick is that people often screw them up (and bad canonicals can be really bad). I do like one on the home-page, because it sweeps up all the weird variants that are so common for home pages.
-
Robert check this article out re: frontpage and htaccess
Frontpage is an html editor that helps you build a site. Apache is a server that site can run on. It sounds like you have both.
You'll want to edit the .htaccess file in the root folder of your website, wherever the file for your homepage sits.
-
Make sure you have a space after the second quotation:
-
Thank you for expounding on this issue
I thought it fit.
-
Dr. Peter, thank you for clarifying this. I do see the R=301 now but I didn't see it before.
That's what I figured. Is their a preferred 301 code to use?
Yes, I will be sure to use it internally as well. I can see where that would be a mess. Thank you again for sharing your expertise.
-
I'm still getting a bad canonical problem, even with every page having a rel="canonical". It even shows up in SEOmoz's stats, with it indexing 300+ pages when there's only 180-odd. Trouble is, the .htaccess file says "FrontPage" not Apache. Would your .htaccess thingy for Apache work there? And is it the .htaccess that's in the url's folder with the rest of the site's regular files, or one that's in a prev. folder?
-
Hi Dr Pete, Would correcting the current issue with a 301 and adding the rel=canonical tags to each page be the best option? My thought being any future duplicate content issues that may occur (not caused from this issue) would be avoided.
-
Sorry I just read this again, the 301 will fix the URL issue site wide.
-
Expounding is what I do
Other people use different words for it...
-
Just to clarify, the rewrite that Ryan is proposing IS a 301-redirect (see the "R=301") - it's just one way to implement it. Done right, it can be used sitewide.
It's perfectly viable to also use canonicals (and I definitely think they're great to have on the home-page, for example), but I think the 301 is more standard practice here. It's best for search crawlers AND visitors to see your canonical URL (www vs. non-www, whichever you choose). That leads people to link to the "proper" version, bookmark it, promote it on social, etc.
Make sure, too, to use the canonical version internally. It's amazing how often people 301-redirect to "www." but then link to the non-www version internally, or vise-versa. Consistent signals are important.
-
Thank you again SEOKeith, I understand what has to be done. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what needed to be done. Yes, the rel canonical tag will reflect whatever the page is I'm adding it.
Since I didn't get the errors for it I never added it to my other sites; so now I have to it for all of them. Fun...
-
I recommend you update each page, note the rel canonical tag will be different for each page. And 50 pages should take you less than 15 mins
-
SEOKeith, the problem is sitewide, all 52 pages. I was hoping to solve the problem in the server and avoid coding each page. But from what I'm gathering is, even if I use the 301 redirect I should still add the rel="canonical" on each page to avoid scraping. This tells the SE that this page is the only page to index and crawl.
Lol, sorry I didn't recognize the acronym. Yes, I have a site that is through Wordpress and one that is through Joomla. The one that I'm having issues with is not through a CMS though.
-
Brian, it's the same thing just a different method both 301.
No it would not cover the issues site wide only for the home page.
CMS = Content Management System (an example would be Wordpress or Drupal).
You should still do the rel="canonical" site wide (on each page).
All make sense ?
-
Thank you SEOKeith, what would be the difference between using a 301 in the .htaccess verses the code Ryan suggested <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">?</ifmodule>
Also if I use the 301 redirect in the .htaccess would it cover this issue site wide?
Okay so the space needs to be there.
No, I don't use a CMS?
-
Brian, if you 301 the example.com to www.example.com that will get rid of the duplicate URL issue server side. (this will resolve your current duplicate content issue).
Additionally I recommend you add the rel=canonical it will prevent other potential duplicate content issues that may arise and is considered good practice to implement.
The tag looks correct, note the space after the domain in quotes:
Are you using a CMS ?
-
Thank you SEOKeith! I definitely want to make sure I don't use any bad practices to fix this issue and thank you for clarifying that about the code.
So if I apply the code and fix the issue from the server by making the URL www.example.com
I would then add the rel=canonical tag to prevent scraping.
Would this be the correct URL to put in the tag?
-
The rewrite rule above is not bad practice, it will fix the issue with your URL's
However it is good practice to use the rel=canonical tag on your site additionally to prevent any other duplicate content issues.
In short the rel=canonical tag tells Google which URL you wish to use, preventing Google from thinking you have duplicate content if multiple URL's exist for the same page.
-
Thank you Keri, that's what I'm thinking but I want to make sure. Thank you for messaging Dr. Pete, I hope maybe he can expound on this.
-
Generally, if you can fix it with code, that tends to be a bit better than the canonical tag, from my understanding. I've emailed Dr. Pete and asked him to contribute to this thread as well, as he's an expert on canonical tags.
-
Thanks a lot guys this is some great information. Let me get this straight.
Is solving this issue with the code below a bad practice?
<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine on</ifmodule>
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]If it's not a bad practice and I implement the code to stop the issue, you are saying I should still use a rel=canonical tag to prevent scraping?
-
You should set up the correct Canonicalization rewrites at the server level with IIS or .htaccess. (Not sure which one you have). If you know what type of sever you are on, then you can find all the correct rewrites. (www, non www, lowercase, trailing slash / , etc.)
For example, here is a great post if you have IIS. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/what-every-seo-should-know-about-iis
And you should also use rel=canonical tags.
-
I always use rel="canonical"
-
Rel Canonical is considered a best practice in SEO, so you should just always include it in your pages, even if they're the only copy of the content you know of. It will help prevent any scrapers from stealing your content down the road.
And re: you're sorta right. Technically speaking, what we're doing with that htaccess code is 301 redirecting every URL, either to the www or non-www version. So say you go with my method anyone going to http://example.com just gets 301'd over to http://www.example.com
-
Thank you Ryan, that is exactly what I expected the problem to be but really couldn't figure out how to address it or solve it. You explained it very well and I appreciate the suggested code to use as well. I should be able to figure it out from here.
Thank you again!
-
Thank you Brent and kjay. Take a look at Ryan's answer, I think that is what I was shooting for. If I can eliminate the problem of an ambiguous URL at the server level then I will not need rel="canonical or 301/302. What do you guys think?
-
Personally I would do the following:
- Set rel="canonical" as Brent says below
- 301 redirect the preferred URL, so if you are using www.example.com redirect example.com, that way if anyone points links at example.com "most" of the juice will pass over (this will probably fix the issue you have posted about)
- Set the referred URL in Google web master tools
If you are using CMS like Wordpress rel="canonical" will probably already be taken care of for your website, you can check this by viewing the source or using SEO Moz's on-page keyword optimization tool.
-
Actually in cases like your example above its more an issue of an ambiguous URL rather than actual duplicate content.
The thing to do in the example above is to choose which version of your site you want (with www or without) to always use, and then set your server accordingly. In Apache this means using your .htaccess file.
If you decide to always display www (my preferred way) then this should be in your .htaccess:
<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine on</ifmodule>
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]If you want your URLS to not use www:
<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine on</ifmodule>
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.(.+)$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://%1%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301] -
You should definitely setup your site Canonicalization, and you should also utilize rel=canonical tags to help distinguish which page is the actual page.
For example, if you want to identify that www.example.com is the correct url, then you would use the following:
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
-
Purchasing duplicate content
Morning all, I have a client who is planning to expand their product range (online dictionary sites) to new markets and are considering the acquisition of data sets from low ranked competitors to supplement their own original data. They are quite large content sets and would mean a very high percentage of the site (hosted on a new sub domain) would be made up of duplicate content. Just to clarify, the competitor's content would stay online as well. I need to lay out the pros and cons of taking this approach so that they can move forward knowing the full facts. As I see it, this approach would mean forgoing ranking for most of the site and would need a heavy dose of original content as well as supplementing the data on page to build around the data. My main concern would be that launching with this level of duplicate data would end up damaging the authority of the site and subsequently the overall domain. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Technical SEO | | BackPack851 -
Content incorrectly being duplicated on microsite
So bear with me here as this is probably a technical issue and i am not that technical. We have a microsite for one of our partner organisations and recently we have detected that content from our main site appearing in the URLs for the microsite - both in search results and then when you click through to the SERP. However, this content does not exist on the actual website at all. Anyone have a possible explanation for this? I have tried searching the web but nothing. I assume there is something in the set up of the microsite that is associating it with the content on the main site.
Technical SEO | | Discovery_SA0 -
Old Content Pages
Hello we run a large sports website. Since 2009 we have been doing game previews for most games every day for all the major sports..IE NFL, CFB, NBA, MLB etc.. Most of these previews generate traffic for 1-2 days leading up to or day of the event. After that there is minimal if any traffic and over the years almost nothing to the old previews. If you do a search for any of these each time the same matchup happens Google will update its rankings and filter out any old matchups/previews with new ones. So our question is what would you do with all this old content? Is it worth just keeping? Google Indexes a majority of it? Should we prune some of the old articles? The other option we thought of and its not really practical is to create event pages where we reuse a post each time the teams meet but if there was some sort of benefit we could do it.
Technical SEO | | dueces0 -
When is Duplicate Content Duplicate Content
Hi, I was wondering exactly when duplicate content is duplicate content? Is it always when it is word-for-word or if it is similar? For example, we currently have an information page and I would like to add a FAQ to the website. There is, however, a crossover with the content and some of it is repeated. However, it is not written word for word. Could you please advise me? Thanks a lot Tom
Technical SEO | | National-Homebuyers0 -
Home page indexed but not ranking...interior pages with thin content outrank home page??
I have a Joomla site with a home page that I can't get to rank for anything beyond the company name @ Google - the site works fine @ Bing and Yahoo. The interior pages will rank all day long but the home page never shows up in the results. I have checked the page code out in every tool that I know about and have had no luck....by all account it should be good to go...any thoughts/comments/help would be greatly appreciated. The site is http://www.selectivedesigns.com Thanks! Greg
Technical SEO | | DougHosmer0 -
How to protect against duplicate content?
I just discovered that my company's 'dev website' (which mirrors our actual website, but which is where we add content before we put new content to our actual website) is being indexed by Google. My first thought is that I should add a rel=canonical tag to the actual website, so that Google knows that this duplicate content from the dev site is to be ignored. Is that the right move? Are there other things I should do? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | williammarlow0 -
Duplicates on the page
Hello SEOMOZ, I've one big question about one project. We have a page http://eb5info.com/eb5-attorneys and a lot of other similar pages. And we got a big list of errors, warnings saying that we have duplicate pages. But in real not all of them are same, they have small differences. For example - you select "State" in the left sidebar and you see a list on the right. List on the right panel is changing depending on the what you selecting on the left. But on report pages marked as duplicates. Maybe you can give some advices how to improve quality of the pages and make SEO better? Thanks Igor
Technical SEO | | usadvisors0 -
Duplicate content
I have just ran a report in seomoz on my domain and has noticed that there are duplicate content issues, the issues are: www.domainname/directory-name/ www.domainname/directory-name/index.php All my internal links and external links point to the first domain, as i prefer this style as it looks clear & concise, however doing this has created duplicate content as within the site itself i have an index.php page inside this /directory-name/ to show the page. Could anyone give me some advice on what i should do please? Kind Regards
Technical SEO | | Paul780