Strange Behavior - Dupe Content Via Query String URLs?
-
Hey y'all, could use community help with some strange behavior I'm seeing with a particular ranking.
A week ago a high volume keyword ranking above the fold dropped off the map. I immediately thought must be an algorithmic penguin penalty (no manual action message) or panda / dupe content issue. I think it's dupe content at this point because I found my former ranking page in the omitted results section for the keyword we used to rank for.
The strange thing is that without making any changes, Google would momentarily show our domain ranking high page one again, but with a strange query string URL. At first just domain.com/page/? whereas the old ranking was held by domain.com/page/ but now I see several long query string URLs floating around that the engines don't seem to know what to do with. Canonical tags are in place to canonicalize any query string URL back to the top and I have now designated query string URLs as unimportant in Search Console parameter filtering but these URLs persist.
I ended up deduplicating content to a page on another domain we own (think that was the original problem) and there seemed to be a positive effect but now we are top of page 2 with a much longer query string URL as the ranking page. It seems Google wants to rank everything but the former ranking URL even though it's the most authoritative by far, has canonical signals in place, and is now no longer duplicate content. Content checker tool showed 60% similarity to the other piece, which is a ratio I've never known to cause dupe content.
We found the source of the query string URLs to be from an external site that has a link to us but it's a buggy site so filtering on the page adds the string to our URL, so Google can find them and thinks they're significant.
Long question short, has anyone had trouble like this? Getting weird parameter / query URLs to get out of the index in favor of the non-parameter folder? Is it possible the main folder page got hit with Penguin and is "banned?" Still, I don't know why Google would go out of it's way to rank query string copy pages in its place if that were the case. Any help greatly appreciated.
An example of the URL looks like this:
domain.com/page/?CustomerSubscriptionTrack1PageSize=1&CustomerSubscriptionTrack1Order=Sorter_ID&CustomerSubscriptionTrack1Dir=ASC&CustomerSubscriptionTrack1Page=3&WorkOrder_TBLOrder=Sorter_AssetID&WorkOrder_TBLDir=ASC&ID=106 -
Hey James, sorry to hear you're getting blasted by negative links and appreciate your responses here.
I actually sorted this one out (fingers crossed it stays that way) by having the dev team implement a redirect rule that 301 redirects any query string back to the folder we want ranking. Similar signal to what the canonical tag would send but in my opinion a stronger signal since there is no longer a way to reach those weird query string URLs with a 200 response.
Once that was implemented the appropriate page was right back to its old high ranking position and the query strings are hardly to be seen in the index and are no longer preferred to the old ranking page - so looks like all is right with the world again.
We also disavowed the domain that was the source of many of the query string URLs. I don't think it was a case of negative SEO - just bad coding on their side. I'm not sure what exactly did the trick but I suspect strongly that the 301 redirects is what solidified the index due tot the strong correlation of that change with ranking recovery.
Maybe you can employ a similar solution whereby you can disavow domains where these links originate or set up server side handling to manage URLs of a specific pattern - for example, any URL containing "pornsite.com" if not any query string altogether (in our case we don't have any use for query strings in our URLs so just bagged them all).
Thanks again,
Matt -
Thanks for the response, James. The odd thing is that canonical tags are implemented correctly as far as I can tell. In the of each variation you can find the following code:
rel="canonical" href="https://www.domain.com/page/" />
(still using my example so as to keep the site anonymous)
And this code had been in place well before the issue arose. So yes, we are sending that signal to Google to apply canonical back to the top in every case, without query string.
Not sure what you're confused by in Search Console - the platform provides a tool to deal with parameter URLs just like the ones I'm seeing. I used it to mark all parameter URLs as not changing content, which should designate to engines to exclude them from the index.
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
-
I'm struggling to understand (and fix) why I'm getting a 404 error. The URL includes this "%5Bnull%20id=43484%5D" but I cannot find that anywhere in the referring URL. Does anyone know why please? Thanks
Can you help with how to fix this 404 error please? It appears that I have a redirect from one page to the other, although the referring page URL works, but it appears to be linking to another URL with this code at the end of the the URL - %5Bnull%20id=43484%5D that I'm struggling to find and fix. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Nichole.wynter20200 -
Urls Too Long - Should I shorten?
On the crawl of our website we have had a warning that 157 have urls that are too long. When I look at the urls they are generally from 2016 or earlier. Should I just leave them as they are or shorten the urls and redirect to new url? Thanks
Technical SEO | | DaleZon4 -
Schema query
Hello All, I have implemented schema on product page. On My product page at left section there is one section i.e. "Popular Products" in that 5 Popular products are listed. Now when I visit ABCD product page then in "Popular Product" section also out of 5 products this ABCD product also listed. Finally when I check structured data testing tool in that following details are available for products - @type, @id, image, name, url, sku, category, description, offers & offers all details, Brand & brands all details ...now after that there in "Is Related To" in that five products following details are there - @type, @id, image, name, url & offers that's it. So my query is, is this consider as duplicate? or no issue at all with google? Thanks! 6dHvQ
Technical SEO | | wright3350 -
Duplicate Content Problems
Hi I am new to the seomoz community I have been browsing for a while now. I put my new website into the seomoz dashboard and out of 250 crawls I have 120 errors! So the main problem is duplicate content. We are a website that finds free content sources for popular songs/artists. While seo is not our main focus for driving traffic I wanted to spend a little time to make sure our site is up to standards. With that said you can see when two songs by an artist are loaded. http://viromusic.com/song/125642 & http://viromusic.com/song/5433265 seomoz is saying that it is duplicate content even though they are two completely different songs. I am not exactly sure what to do about this situation. We will be adding more content to our site such as a blog, artist biographies and commenting maybe this will help? Although if someone was playing multiple bob marley songs the biography that is loaded will also be the same for both songs. Also when a playlist is loaded http://viromusic.com/playlist/sldvjg on the larger playlists im getting an error for to many links on the page. (some of the playlists have over 100 songs) any suggestions? Thanks in advance and any tips or suggestions for my new site would be greatly appreciated!
Technical SEO | | mikecrib10 -
Content on top-level-domain vs. content on subpage
Hello Seomoz community, I just built a new website, mainly for a single affiliate programm and it ranks really well at google. Unfortunately the merchant doesn’t like the name of my domain, that’s why I was thrown out of the affiliate program. So suppose the merchant is a computer monitor manufacturer and his name is “Digit”. The name of my domain is something like monitorsdigital.com at the moment. (It’s just an example, I don’t own this URL). The structure of my website is: 1 homepage with much content on it + a blog. The last 5 blog entries are displayed on the homepage. Because I got kicked out of the affiliate program I want to permanent redirect monitorsdigital.com to another domain. But what should the new website look like? I have two possibilities: Copy the whole monitorsdigital website to a new domain, called something like supermonitors.com. Integrate the monitorsdigital website into my existing website about different monitor manufacturers. E.g.: allmonitors.com/digit-monitors.html (that url is permitted by the merchant) What do you think is the better way? I just got the impression, that it seems to be a little easier to rank high with a top-level-domain (www.supermonitors.com) than with a subpage (www.allmonitors.com/digit-monitors.html). However the subpage can benefit from the domain authority, that was generated by other subpages. Thanks for your help and best regards MGMT
Technical SEO | | MGMT0 -
How do I properly use the canonical tag to avoid negative effect from having identical content on 2 url’s?
To illustrate… I have same website uploaded at 2 locations (url’s). Only the domain extensions are different. www.myexample.com
Technical SEO | | swiftseo
www.myexample.org The benefit is that I may run some promos on one location and not the other to help in product surveys/testing. The website content is 98% identical and I understand this content duplication may cause SEO problems. The domain I wish to use for rankings etc is www.myexample.com 1) How do I go about avoiding seo problem? Do I need to place the canonical tag at www.myexample.org ie 2) Do I also place the exact same tag at the .com location or not necessary there? Is there an alternative or more effective option to resolving the problem?0 -
Dismal content rankings
Hi, I realize this is a very broad question, but I am going to ask it anyways in the hopes that someone might have some insight. I have created a great deal of unique content for the site http://www.healthchoices.ca. You can select a video category from the top dropdown, then click on a video beside the provider box to see. The articles I've written are accessible by the View Article tab under each video. I have worked hard to make the articles informative and they are all unique with quotes from expert physicians. Even for strange health conditions that don't have a lot of competition - I don't see us appearing. Our search results are quite dismal for the amount of content we have. I guess I'm checking to see if anyone is able to point me in the right direction at all? If anything jumps out... Thanks, Erin
Technical SEO | | erinhealthchoices0 -
Duplicate Content issue
I have been asked to review an old website to an identify opportunities for increasing search engine traffic. Whilst reviewing the site I came across a strange loop. On each page there is a link to printer friendly version: http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes That page also has a link to a printer friendly version http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes&printfriendly=yes and so on and so on....... Some of these pages are being included in Google's index. I appreciate that this can't be a good thing, however, I am not 100% sure as to the extent to which it is a bad thing and the priority that should be given to getting it sorted. Just wandering what views people have on the issues this may cause?
Technical SEO | | CPLDistribution0