Tired of finding solution for duplicate contents.
-
Just my site was scanned by seomoz and seen lots of duplicate content and titles found. Well I am tired of finding solutions of duplicate content for a shopping site product category page. You can see the screenshot below.
http://i.imgur.com/TXPretv.png
You can see below in every link its showing "items_per_page=64, 128 etc.". This happened in every category in which I was created. I am already using Canonical add-on to avoid this problem but still it's there.
You can check my domain here - http://www.plugnbuy.com/computer-software/pc-security/antivirus-internet-security/ and see if the add-on working correct.
I recently submitted my sitemap to GWT, so that's why it's not showing me any report regarding duplicate issues.
Please help ME
-
Thank you. I will tell to my developer regarding this issue and than see what they reply.
-
You could canonical the "/portable-hard-disk" pages back up to "/hard-disk", but honestly, unless this is a widespread problem, I'd probably ignore it. if you have a lot of these sub-categories with duplicate search results, then I'd consider changing up your canonical scheme or NOINDEX'ing some sub-categories - search results just aren't high-value to Google, especially if they start all looking the same.
If this is an isolated occurrence, though, it's a lot of trouble for a relatively minor problem. It would take a pretty deep knowledge of your product inventory and site structure to know for sure, but my gut reaction is that this is a small issue.
-
So right now what should i do to solve this problem ?
-
I talked to the technical team. The screen may be a bit confusing. Your "items_per_page" variations are not being flagged as a duplicate of "/hard-disk/portable-hard-disk/". All of the pages (including the items_per_page variants) are being flagged as near-duplicates (95%+) of "/hard-disk". Basically, since those pages show the exact same products and only differ by a header, we're flagging them as being too similar. Once we do that, then all of the other pages that canonical to the "/portable-hard-disk" page also look like near-duplicates of "/hard-disk".
It's not catastrophic, but if you have enough of these category/sub-category search pages that overlap on their results, you may want to reconsider whether you index all of them. At small scale, it's not a big deal. At large scale, these very similar pages could dilute your ranking ability.
-
We don't currently have a way to ignore warnings/errors, although I know that's on the wish list. Let me ping the Product Team on this one and see if they have any additional insight.
-
Then how can I rip off from seomoz crawler those links ?
-
As best I can tell, your canonical tags are properly implemented and Google doesn't seem to be indexing any URLs with "items_per_page" in them. Our crawler and desktop crawlers may be getting confused because there are internal paths to these variations.
Ideally, that pulldown probably shouldn't be crawlable, but I think your canonical implementation as it stands is ok. I don't see any evidence that Google is having problems with it. It may just be a false alarm on our part.
-
SEO spider is showing meta descriptions and is not saying that content is duplicate. It means it is not checking rel canonical on these pages as well. So it is not an issue.
Note that duplicate title / desc does not mean content is duplicate.
Tools which are looking at one thing only will give this issue. Tools which are specific for finding duplicate content will not give an issue.
-
I also checked through Xenu and Screaming Frog Spider and both are showing the same thing. Check the attachment
-
But the pages were there before add-on was added. Right ?
If they were then the Google may have crawled them and SEOMoz may have picked them from Google or some other engines which resulted in the issue.
So I suggest to wait and watch as you will get Crawl Errors every week from SEOMoz.
-
I Installed the add-on before the product was added.
-
As of now your rel="canonical" immplementation looks fine. So these errors may have been found when you were not using rel="canonical" and you were not using AJAX for showing the different number of results.
You should wait for next weeks results and the results should come fine.
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
-
Duplicate Content/Similar Pages
Hello, I'm working on our site and I'm coming into an issue with the duplicate content. Our company manufactures heavy-duty mobile lifts. We have two main lifts. They are the same, except for capacity. We want to keep the format similar and the owner of the company wants each lift to have its own dedicated page. Obviously, since the layout is the same and content is similar I'm getting the duplicate content issue. We also have a section of our accessories and a section of our parts. Each of these sections have individual pages for the accessory/part. Again, the pages are laid out in a similar fashion to keep the cohesiveness, and the content is different, however similar. Meaning different terminology, part numbers, stock numbers, etc., but the overall wording is similar. What can I do to combat these issues? I think our ratings are dropping due to the duplicate content.
Technical SEO | | slecinc0 -
Development Website Duplicate Content Issue
Hi, We launched a client's website around 7th January 2013 (http://rollerbannerscheap.co.uk), we originally constructed the website on a development domain (http://dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk) which was active for around 6-8 months (the dev site was unblocked from search engines for the first 3-4 months, but then blocked again) before we migrated dev --> live. In late Jan 2013 changed the robots.txt file to allow search engines to index the website. A week later I accidentally logged into the DEV website and also changed the robots.txt file to allow the search engines to index it. This obviously caused a duplicate content issue as both sites were identical. I realised what I had done a couple of days later and blocked the dev site from the search engines with the robots.txt file. Most of the pages from the dev site had been de-indexed from Google apart from 3, the home page (dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk, and two blog pages). The live site has 184 pages indexed in Google. So I thought the last 3 dev pages would disappear after a few weeks. I checked back late February and the 3 dev site pages were still indexed in Google. I decided to 301 redirect the dev site to the live site to tell Google to rank the live site and to ignore the dev site content. I also checked the robots.txt file on the dev site and this was blocking search engines too. But still the dev site is being found in Google wherever the live site should be found. When I do find the dev site in Google it displays this; Roller Banners Cheap » admin <cite>dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk/</cite><a id="srsl_0" class="pplsrsla" tabindex="0" data-ved="0CEQQ5hkwAA" data-url="http://dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk/" data-title="Roller Banners Cheap » admin" data-sli="srsl_0" data-ci="srslc_0" data-vli="srslcl_0" data-slg="webres"></a>A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.This is really affecting our clients SEO plan and we can't seem to remove the dev site or rank the live site in Google.Please can anyone help?
Technical SEO | | SO_UK0 -
How can something be duplicate content of itself?
Just got the new crawl report, and I have a recurring issue that comes back around every month or so, which is that a bunch of pages are reported as duplicate content for themselves. Literally the same URL: http://awesomewidgetworld.com/promotions.shtml is reporting that http://awesomewidgetworld.com/promotions.shtml is both a duplicate title, and duplicate content. Well, I would hope so! It's the same URL! Is this a crawl error? Is it a site error? Has anyone seen this before? Do I need to give more information? P.S. awesomewidgetworld is not the actual site name.
Technical SEO | | BetAmerica0 -
Tags and Duplicate Content
Just wondering - for a lot of our sites we use tags as a way of re-grouping articles / news / blogs so all of the info on say 'government grants' can be found on one page. These /tag pages often come up with duplicate content errors, is it a big issue, how can we minimnise that?
Technical SEO | | salemtas0 -
Cant get my head around this duplicate content dilemma!
Hi, Lets say you have a cleaning company, you have a services page, which covers window cleaning, carpet cleaning etc, lets say the content on this page adds up to around 750 words. Now lets say you would like to create new pages which targeted location specific keywords in your area. The easiest way would be to copy the services page and just change all the tags to the location specific term but now you have duplicate content. If I wanted to target 10 locations, does this now mean I need to generate 750 words of unique content for each page which is basically the services page rewritten? Cheers
Technical SEO | | activitysuper0 -
Multiple URLs in CMS - duplicate content issue?
So about a month ago, we finally ported our site over to a content management system called Umbraco. Overall, it's okay, and certainly better than what we had before (i.e. nothing - just static pages). However, I did discover a problem with the URL management within the system. We had a number of pages that existed as follows: sparkenergy.com/state/name However, they exist now within certain folders, like so: sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/name So we had an aliasing system set up whereby you could call the URL basically whatever you want, so that allowed us to retain the old URL structure. However, we have found that the alias does not override, but just adds another option to finding a page. Which means the same pages can open under at least two different URLs, such as http://www.sparkenergy.com/state/texas and http://www.sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/texas. I've tried pointing to the aliased URL in other parts of the site with the rel canonical tag, without success. How much of a problem is this with respect to duplicate content? Should we bite the bullet, remove the aliased URLs and do 301s to the new folder structure?
Technical SEO | | ufmedia0 -
Duplicate Content and Canonical use
We have a pagination issue, which the developers seem reluctant (or incapable) to fix whereby we have 3 of the same page (slightly differing URLs) coming up in different pages in the archived article index. The indexing convention was very poorly thought up by the developers and has left us with the same article on, for example, page 1, 2 and 3 of the article index, hence the duplications. Is this a clear cut case of using a canonical tag? Quite concerned this is going to have a negative impact on ranking, of course. Cheers Martin
Technical SEO | | Martin_S0 -
Solution for duplicate content not working
I'm getting a duplicate content error for: http://www.website.com http://www.website.com/default.htm I searched for the Q&A for the solution and found: Access the.htaccess file and add this line: redirect 301 /default.htm http://www.website.com I added the redirect to my .htaccess and then got the following error from Google when trying to access the http://www.website.com/default.htm page: "This webpage has a redirect loop
Technical SEO | | Joeuspe
The webpage at http://www.webpage.com/ has resulted in too many redirects. Clearing your cookies for this site or allowing third-party cookies may fix the problem. If not, it is possibly a server configuration issue and not a problem with your computer." "Error 310 (net::ERR_TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS): There were too many redirects." How can I correct this? Thanks0