Parameter Strings & Duplicate Page Content
-
I'm managing a site that has thousands of pages due to all of the dynamic parameter strings that are being generated. It's a real estate listing site that allows people to create a listing, and is generating lots of new listings everyday. The Moz crawl report is continually flagging A LOT (25k+) of the site pages for duplicate content due to all of these parameter string URLs.
Example: sitename.com/listings & sitename.com/listings/?addr=street name
Do I really need to do anything about those pages? I have researched the topic quite a bit, but can't seem to find anything too concrete as to what the best course of action is. My original thinking was to add the rel=canonical tag to each of the main URLs that have parameters attached. I have also read that you can bypass that by telling Google what parameters to ignore in Webmaster tools.
We want these listings to show up in search results, though, so I don't know if either of these options is ideal, since each would cause the listing pages (pages with parameter strings) to stop being indexed, right? Which is why I'm wondering if doing nothing at all will hurt the site?
I should also mention that I originally recommend the rel=canonical option to the web developer, who has pushed back in saying that "search engines ignore parameter strings." Naturally, he doesn't want the extra work load of setting up the canonical tags, which I can understand, but I want to make sure I'm both giving him the most feasible option for implementation as well as the best option to fix the issues.
-
You started by saying the problem is duplicate content. Are those pages with the various parameter strings basically duplicate content? Because if they are, no matter what you do you will probably not get them all to rank; the URL is not your main problem in that case. (Though you still should do something about those parameter strings.)
-
Thanks for the quick response, EGOL. Very helpful.
I'm not at all familiar with your 3rd suggestion in your response. If we were to strip them off at the server level, what would that actually look like? Both in terms of the code that we need to use in .htaccess as well as the resulting change to the URL?
Would that affect the pages and their ability to be indexed? Any potential negative SEO effects from doing this?
Just trying to make sure it's what we need and figure out the best way to relay this to the web developer. Thanks!
-
Do I really need to do anything about those pages?
**In my opinion, YES, absolutely. ** Allowing lots of parameters to persist on your site increases crawling require, dilutes the power to your pages, I believe that your site's rankings will decline over time if these parameters are not killed.
There are three methods to handle it.... redirect, settings in webmaster tools and canonical. These three methods are not equivalent and each works in a very different way.
-
The parameters control in Google Webmaster Tools is unreliable. It did not work for me. And, it does not work for any other search engine. Find a different solution, is what I recommend.
-
Using rel=canonical relies on Google to obey it. From my experience it works well at present time. But we know that Google says how they are going to do things and then changes their mind without tellin' anybody. I would not rely on this.
-
If you really want to control these parameters, use htaccess to strip them off at the server level. That is doing it where you totally control it and not relying on what anybody says that they are going to do. Take control.
The only reservation about #3 is that you might need parameters for on-site search or category page sorting on your own site. These can be excluded from being stripped in your htaccess file.
Don't allow search engines to do anything for you that you can do for yourself. They can screw it up or quit doing it at any time and not say anything about it.
-
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
-
Minimum amount of content for Ecommerce pages?
Hi Guys, Currently optimizing my e-commerce store which currently has around 100 words of content on average for each category page. Based on this study by Backlinko the more content the better: http://backlinko.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/02_Content-Total-Word-Count_line.png Would you say this is true for e-commerce pages, for example, a page like this: http://www.theiconic.com.au/yoga-pants/ What benefits would you receive with adding more content? Is it basically more content, leads to more potential long-tail opportunity and more organic traffic? Assuming the content is solid and not built just for SEO reasons. Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seowork2140 -
Pagination causing duplicate content problems
Hi The pagination on our website www.offonhols.com is causing duplicate content problems. Is the best solution adding add rel=”prev” / “next# to the hrefs As now the pagination links at the bottom of the page are just http://offonhols.com/default.aspx?dp=1
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | offonhols
http://offonhols.com/default.aspx?dp=2
http://offonhols.com/default.aspx?dp=3
etc0 -
SEO structure question: Better to add similar (but distinct) content to multiple unique pages or make one unique page?
Not sure which approach would be more SEO ranking friendly? As we are a music store, we do instrument repairs on all instruments. Currently, I don't have much of any content about our repairs on our website... so I'm considering a couple different approaches of adding this content: Let's take Trumpet Repair for example: 1. I can auto write to the HTML body (say, at the end of the body) of our 20 Trumpets (each having their own page) we have for sale on our site, the verbiage of all repairs, services, rates, and other repair related detail. In my mind, the effect of this may be that: This added information does uniquely pertain to Trumpets only (excludes all other instrument repair info), which Google likes... but it would be duplicate Trumpet repair information over 20 pages.... which Google may not like? 2. Or I could auto write the repair details to the Trumpet's Category Page - either in the Body, Header, or Footer. This definitely reduces the redundancy of the repeating Trumpet repair info per Trumpet page, but it also reduces each Trumpet pages content depth... so I'm not sure which out weighs the other? 3. Write it to both category page & individual pages? Possibly valuable because the information is anchoring all around itself and supporting... or is that super duplication? 4. Of course, create a category dedicated to repairs then add a subcategory for each instrument and have the repair info there be completely unique to that page...- then in the body of each 20 Trumpets, tag an internal link to Trumpet Repair? Any suggestions greatly appreciated? Thanks, Kevin
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kevin_McLeish0 -
Best practice with duplicate content. Cd
Our website has recently been updated, now it seems that all of our products pages look like this cdnorigin.companyname.com/catagory/product Google is showing these pages within the search. rather then companyname.com/catagory/product Each product page does have a canaonacal tag on that points to the cdnorigin page. Is this best practice? i dont think that cdnorigin.companyname etc looks very goon in the search. is there any reason why my designer would set the canonical tags up this way?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexogilvie0 -
How much content on PDF download page
Hello, This is about content for an ecommerce site. We have an article page that we also created a PDF out of. We have an HTML page that doesn't have anything commercial on it that is the download page for the PDF page. How much of the article do you recommend we put on the non-commercial HTML download page? Should we put most of the article on there? We're trying to get people to link to the HTML Download page, not the PDF.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Is an RSS feed considered duplicate content?
I have a large client with satellite sites. The large site produces many news articles and they want to put an RSS feed on the satellite sites that will display the articles from the large site. My question is, will the rss feeds on the satellite sites be considered duplicate content? If yes, do you have a suggestion to utilize the data from the large site without being penalized? If no, do you have suggestions on what tags should be used on the satellite pages? EX: wrapped in tags? THANKS for the help. Darlene
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gXeSEO0 -
Http and https duplicate content?
Hello, This is a quick one or two. 🙂 If I have a page accessible on http and https count as duplicate content? What about external links pointing to my website to the http or https page. Regards, Cornel
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Cornel_Ilea0 -
SEOMOZ duplicate page result: True or false?
SEOMOZ say's: I have six (6) duplicate pages. Duplicate content tool checker say's (0) On the physical computer that hosts the website the page exists as one file. The casing of the file is irrelevant to the host machine, it wouldn't allow 2 files of the same name in the same directory. To reenforce this point, you can access said file by camel-casing the URI in any fashion (eg; http://www.agi-automation.com/Pneumatic-grippers.htm). This does not bring up a different file each time, the server merely processes the URI as case-less and pulls the file by it's name. What is happening in the example given is that some sort of indexer is being used to create a "dummy" reference of all the site files. Since the indexer doesn't have file access to the server, it does this by link crawling instead of reading files. It is the crawler that is making an assumption that the different casings of the pages are in fact different files. Perhaps there is a setting in the indexer to ignore casing. So the indexer is thinking that these are 2 different pages when they really aren't. This makes all of the other points moot, though they would certainly be relevant in the case of an actual duplicated page." ****Page Authority Linking Root Domains http://www.agi-automation.com/ 43 82 http://www.agi-automation.com/index.html 25 2 http://www.agi-automation.com/Linear-escapements.htm 21 1 www.agi-automation.com/linear-escapements.htm 16 1 http://www.agi-automation.com/Pneumatic-grippers.htm 30 3 http://www.agi-automation.com/pneumatic-grippers.htm 16 1**** Duplicate content tool estimates the following: www and non-www header response; Google cache check; Similarity check; Default page check; 404 header response; PageRank dispersion check (i.e. if www and non-www versions have different PR).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AGIAutomation0