Website Redesign - Duplicate Content?
-
I hired a company to redesign our website.there are many pages like the example below that we are downsizing content by 80%.(believe me, not my decision)Current page: https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/New page (on test server):https://servicechampions.mymwpdesign.com/air-conditioning/My question to you is, that 80% of content that i am losing in the redesign, can i republish it as a blog?I know that google has it indexed. The old page has been live for 5 years, but now 80% of it will no longer be live. so can it be a blog and gain new (keep) seo value?What should i do with the 80% of content i am losing?
-
Hi Camilo,
thanks for the clarification. As this content wil not be available anymore on the "old" pages it will only exist on the newly created blog pages there will be no duplicate content issues. These newly created blog pages with the content removed from "old" pages will start from scratch for ranking. and the "old" pages could loose some ranking because you reduced the onpage ranking.
This is not per se bad as it is part of your strategy to improve on conversions (which should be the most important kpi anyway).
You could help these new blog pages a bit by linking to them from the "old" page.
-
Hello Ramon and James,
Sorry for the confusion.
https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/air-conditioning-installation-and-replacement/ --> current site (accessible directly homepage though main navigation)
will also be available on the new site, with the same URL.
The reason why i post this question is, on the new site, i will be reducing the content on this page (and others) by 80%. That 80% worth of content from the current pages in question, will not exists in the new site. It will not be on the new site because all the content on some pages have been considered to be too exhausting for clients to read and convert to a lead. We have created the new website, same urls, with leaner content to drive more conversions. Less overwhelming to site visitors.
For example, on this page: https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/
there are two segments under subheadings: What is an air conditioning system? and another called: How an air conditioner works.
Both of these segments will not be in the new website.Well, i want to republish the lost content as new blogs. My question was, since the soon to be lost content is currently indexed in google, if i republish them as a new set of blogs after the new site goes live, so will Google see the new blogs as duplicate content since it already has been indexed by them?
-
Hi Camilo,
now i am really confused, if you want to maintain the 80% pages and you said they will remain the same url when you make them accessible in your blog.
so
https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/air-conditioning-installation-and-replacement/ --> current site (accessible directly homepage though main navigation)
https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/air-conditioning-installation-and-replacement/ --> new site (accessible through blog)
than why would you need canonical at all and why would you loose rank (besides some lost due to the fact the page is not linked directly from the homepage but from the blog)?
Maybe i am missing something
-
Hi Camilo,
Interesting as google states "Only include critic reviews that have been directly produced by your site..." on https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/reviews#local-business-reviews.
I can only imagine they didn´t realize these reviews were not produced directly by your site because of the way you implemented them in the footer.
-
Thank you Roman for your response.
I forgot to realize that Google will recalculate the rank on the new page. My concern is that the new page rank (although keeping the same URL) will loose some ranking.
If i create a new blog post with the content that is not used in the new page (same page url), and i use a cannonical tag on the new blog post linking to the redesigned page, will the new blog post be indexed and possibly out rank the page i am transferring content from?
-
Hello Ramon,
Interesting that you mention the schema markup. It will be on the new site as well. Just yesterday I guided the redesign company to include such markup. Last week, i did receive a google message though my webmaster tools (console) stating that i had potentially spammy code. So what i did, was i added the reviews (from Yelp, Google, Facebook, BBB) to the footer of my website. They were not on the site prior to last week. Once i added them, i filed a reconsideration request explaining what i did and why i did it, google responded saying they approve and they removed the manual action. So once again, our website displays star ratings on the SERPs. see attached image. They were showing prior to last week manual action. then they were removed on i received the manual action. after i added the reviews to the site's footer, and filed a reconsideration request, the manual action was removed and the ratings re-appeared in the SERPs.
The new site will keep all its urls. They will not change. Just the content on a few core pages. So i am gathering that it is ok to make the content that will be deleted into a blog.
-
Hello James,
I appreciate your two cents, greatly. I too am not a huge fan of the new site, but I am giving it a shot. Our current site is content heavy and ranks well for our terms. The change in design is geared to converting more leads (calls and forms). So I am giving this change a shot which is aimed to a less technical audience. People looking to fix their ac. I just hope that the new site still keeps its rankings. All urls will remain the same.
-
If some page is useful for your users or audience you dont delete that page.
In your case is not your desicion, so you have 2 alternatives,1-Redirect those pages to another page with similar content (it has to be a better content than the orginal)
2-The other option is add a canonical tag, basically you will trasfer the authority of the old page to the new one.But there is one factor that you need to keep in mind, that factor is the URL. If your new page will use the URL of the old page, there is no reason
to keep live the old pages because from the google perspective you would be replaced the old pages.Example
https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/ ----> Old Page with old content
https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/ ----> New Page with New contentFrom the Google perspective your new page is replacing the old one, so Google need to recalculate the rank of the page (links, content, ux ect).
So no matter, if your republish the content in your blog and then you add some cannonical tags
Example
https://servicechampions.com/blog/air-conditioning/ ----> Old Page with old contentTo Google the constant parameter is the URL if change it change the ecuation. My advices, Dont change the URL structure, keep the same URL structure and add some improvements.
Example
https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/ ----> Old Page with old content
https://servicechampions.com/service-air-conditioning/ ----> New Page with New contentAnd then to avoid duplicate content issues add the canonical tag the older page so in that way
you will trasfer the authority from the old to the new pageRead this article will help you a lot
A Step-by-Step Guide to Updating Your Website Without Destroying Your SEO
-
Hi,
As a general rule its fundemental to maintain pages that are relevant for your audience and generate organic traffic so i would say yes its a good idea to republish as a blog. Furthermore because i see that a big part of these pages (though i don´t know exactly which 80% you will loose) are pages that are a perfect fit for a blog, like how to and informational articles.
Would be good to maintain the same url´s to avoid redirects but depending on the cms being used that might proof more difficult. At least maintain meta data and redirects with 301´s.
I also saw you were using third party reviews in schema markup on your current site (but not,yet, on your new site) and this is not a good idea as this is against google´s guidelines (more on this here http://searchengineland.com/google-updates-local-reviews-schema-guidelines-257745)
Success with your new site
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
-
International SEO and duplicate content: what should I do when hreflangs are not enough?
Hi, A follow up question from another one I had a couple of months ago: It has been almost 2 months now that my hreflangs are in place. Google recognises them well and GSC is cleaned (no hreflang errors). Though I've seen some positive changes, I'm quite far from sorting that duplicate content issue completely and some entire sub-folders remain hidden from the SERP.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GhillC
I believe it happens for two reasons: 1. Fully mirrored content - as per the link to my previous question above, some parts of the site I'm working on are 100% similar. Quite a "gravity issue" here as there is nothing I can do to fix the site architecture nor to get bespoke content in place. 2. Sub-folders "authority". I'm guessing that Google prefers sub-folders over others due to their legacy traffic/history. Meaning that even with hreflangs in place, the older sub-folder would rank over the right one because Google believes it provides better results to its users. Two questions from these reasons:
1. Is the latter correct? Am I guessing correctly re "sub-folders" authority (if such thing exists) or am I simply wrong? 2. Can I solve this using canonical tags?
Instead of trying to fix and "promote" hidden sub-folders, I'm thinking to actually reinforce the results I'm getting from stronger sub-folders.
I.e: if a user based in belgium is Googling something relating to my site, the site.com/fr/ subfolder shows up instead of the site.com/be/fr/ sub-sub-folder.
Or if someone is based in Belgium using Dutch, he would get site.com/nl/ results instead of the site.com/be/nl/ sub-sub-folder. Therefore, I could canonicalise /be/fr/ to /fr/ and do something similar for that second one. I'd prefer traffic coming to the right part of the site for tracking and analytic reasons. However, instead of trying to move mountain by changing Google's behaviour (if ever I could do this?), I'm thinking to encourage the current flow (also because it's not completely wrong as it brings traffic to pages featuring the correct language no matter what). That second question is the main reason why I'm looking out for MoZ's community advice: am I going to damage the site badly by using canonical tags that way? Thank you so much!
G0 -
Mixing up languages on the same page + possible duplicate content
I have a site in English hosted under .com with English info, and then different versions of the site under subdirectories (/de/, /es/, etc.) Due to budget constraints we have only managed to translate the most important info of our product pages for the local domains. We feel however that displaying (on a clearly identified tab) the detailed product info in English may be of use for many users that can actually understand English, and may help us get more conversions to have that info. The problem is that this detailed product info is already used on the equivalent English page as well. This basically means 2 things: We are mixing languages on pages We have around 50% of duplicate content of these pages What do you think that the SEO implications of this are? By the way, proper Meta Titles and Meta Descriptions as well as implementation of href lang tag are in place.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lauraseo0 -
Duplicate Content: Is a product feed/page rolled out across subdomains deemed duplicate content?
A company has a TLD (top-level-domain) which every single product: company.com/product/name.html The company also has subdomains (tailored to a range of products) which lists a choosen selection of the products from the TLD - sort of like a feed: subdomain.company.com/product/name.html The content on the TLD & subdomain product page are exactly the same and cannot be changed - CSS and HTML is slightly differant but the content (text and images) is exactly the same! My concern (and rightly so) is that Google will deem this to be duplicate content, therfore I'm going to have to add a rel cannonical tag into the header of all subdomain pages, pointing to the original product page on the TLD. Does this sound like the correct thing to do? Or is there a better solution? Moving on, not only are products fed onto subdomain, there are a handfull of other domains which list the products - again, the content (text and images) is exactly the same: other.com/product/name.html Would I be best placed to add a rel cannonical tag into the header of the product pages on other domains, pointing to the original product page on the actual TLD? Does rel cannonical work across domains? Would the product pages with a rel cannonical tag in the header still rank? Let me know if there is a better solution all-round!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iam-sold0 -
Duplicate Content for Deep Pages
Hey guys, For deep, deep pages on a website, does duplicate content matter? The pages I'm talk about are image pages associated with products and will never rank in Google which doesn't concern me. What I'm interested to know though is whether the duplicate content would have an overall effect on the site as a whole? Thanks in advance Paul
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kevinliao1 -
How do I best handle Duplicate Content on an IIS site using 301 redirects?
The crawl report for a site indicates the existence of both www and non-www content, which I am aware is duplicate. However, only the www pages are indexed**, which is throwing me off. There are not any 'no-index' tags on the non-www pages and nothing in robots.txt and I can't find a sitemap. I believe a 301 redirect from the non-www pages is what is in order. Is this accurate? I believe the site is built using asp.net on IIS as the pages end in .asp. (not very familiar to me) There are multiple versions of the homepage, including 'index.html' and 'default.asp.' Meta refresh tags are being used to point to 'default.asp'. What has been done: 1. I set the preferred domain to 'www' in Google's Webmaster Tools, as most links already point to www. 2. The Wordpress blog which sits in a /blog subdirectory has been set with rel="canonical" to point to the www version. What I have asked the programmer to do: 1. Add 301 redirects from the non-www pages to the www pages. 2. Set all versions of the homepage to redirect to www.site.org using 301 redirects as opposed to meta refresh tags. Have all bases been covered correctly? One more concern: I notice the canonical tags in the source code of the blog use a trailing slash - will this create a problem of inconsistency? (And why is rel="canonical" the standard for Wordpress SEO plugins while 301 redirects are preferred for SEO?) Thanks a million! **To clarify regarding the indexation of non-www pages: A search for 'site:site.org -inurl:www' returns only 7 pages without www which are all blog pages without content (Code 200, not 404 - maybe deleted or moved - which is perhaps another 301 redirect issue).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kimmiedawn0 -
Duplicate Content Question
Currently, we manage a site that generates content from a database based on user search criteria such as location or type of business. ..Although we currently rank well -- we created the website based on providing value to the visitor with options for viewing the content - we are concerned about duplicate content issues and if they would apply. For example, the listing that is pulled up for the user upon one search could have the same content as another search but in a different order. Similar to hotels who offer room booking by room type or by rate. Would this dynamically generated content count as duplicate content? The site has done well, but don't want to risk a any future Google penalties caused by duplicate content. Thanks for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CompucastWeb1 -
Duplicate content throughout multiple URLs dilemma
We have a website with lots of categories and there are problems that some subcategories have identical content on them. So, is it enough to just add different text on those problematic subcategories or we need to use "canonical" tag to main category. Same dilemma is with our search system and duplicate content. For example, "/category/sports" URL would have similar to identical content with "/search/sports" and "/search/sports-fitness/" URLs. Ranking factors is important for all different categories and subcategories. Ranking factors is also important for search individual keywords. So, the question is, how to make them somehow unique/different to rank on all those pages well? Would love to hear advices how it can be solved using different methods and how it would affect our rankings. When we actually need to use "canonical" tag and when 301 redirect is better. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | versliukai0 -
Mobile Site - Same Content, Same subdomain, Different URL - Duplicate Content?
I'm trying to determine the best way to handle my mobile commerce site. I have a desktop version and a mobile version using a 3rd party product called CS-Cart. Let's say I have a product page. The URLs are... mobile:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | grayloon
store.domain.com/index.php?dispatch=categories.catalog#products.view&product_id=857 desktop:
store.domain.com/two-toned-tee.html I've been trying to get information regarding how to handle mobile sites with different URLs in regards to duplicate content. However, most of these results have the assumption that the different URL means m.domain.com rather than the same subdomain with a different address. I am leaning towards using a canonical URL, if possible, on the mobile store pages. I see quite a few suggesting to not do this, but again, I believe it's because they assume we are just talking about m.domain.com vs www.domain.com. Any additional thoughts on this would be great!0