Why SEOmoz bot consider these as duplicate pages?

[fablau]

Hello here,

SEOmoz bot has recently marked the following two pages as duplicate:

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html?tab=mp3

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html?tab=pdf

I don't personally see how these pages can be considered duplicate since their content is quite different.

Thoughts??!!

[AlanMosley]

I would say that because they main difference is a image v some flash. the text content is very much the same

[fablau]

I am sorry, but I don't agree on that: one page includes a long list of media files that the other one doesn't include. I see these two pages quite different as main content. Of course top navigation, side and bottom are identical (typical in an ecommerce sites), but the main content is quite different, in my opinion.

Look at the problem this way: what do you think should I do to differentiate those pages furthermore? Adding more and different text? I see the first page listing the media files already including a good number of text completely different by the second page. If SEOmoz duplicate page algorithm is giving feedback from a UI stand point (seen that it ignores completely my canonical tag definition on those two pages), as a "human" myself I see those pages with a completely different content and purpose. Therefore, I assume the algorithm is faulty in some way. Do you really see those pages with nearly identical content as a human yourself??!

[EGOL]

In my opinion, these are not two different pages.  They are the same page with a different parameter.

I am not an expert on how search engines handle these types of URLs but if this was my site I would be using a technology that allows different tabs to display without adding a parameter to the URL.....

[AlanMosley]

Good point, I would be looking at a ajax solution.

[EGOL]

I am not going to look at this site any further because it is at the limits of my ability to diagnose.

However, I think that parameters are causing a huge problem, I think that there is a lot of linking into search results, and I think that there is a big problem with thin and duplicate content.

If this was my site I would hire a pro who knows about this stuff, be willing to undertake a major restructuring, and be willing to write an awful lot of content.

===================

that's the last I can offer....  good luck

[NaescentAdam]

I'm not sure on these things but if it's a parameter issue i.e. the url only being different after the ?, could a quick solution be to use htaccess and take the tab parameter and insert it into the url? Not sure how scale-able that would be though...

[fablau]

I think there is some confusion here. I think we must approach this issue by looking from 2 perspectives only: from the SE stand point and the user (UI) stand point.

From the SE stand point, I have setup a canonical tag definition which should take care of the duplicate issue (if I am not correct here, what are canonical tags for?).

From the user stand point, I repeat what I stated above: I don't see those two pages so similar as the bot has reported since the main content is completely different indeed (different textual content, different media, different purpose), therefore the duplicate issue from a UI prospective, is my opinion irrelevant.

To reinforce my thesis above, the fact you are suggesting me to approach such a "possible" duplicate issue via AJAX, tells me that my biggest concern should be from a SE stand point (which, I repeat, should have been tackled with the canonical tag) and not from a UI stand point (otherwise, why use AJAX instead than URL parameters if the UI end result is the same??!).

I will wait for your further thoughts. I am sorry, but I am not convinced by what you are telling me and I still don't understand what value I must then give to the duplicate report from SEOmoz bot considering that: 1. SEOmoz bot ignores the canonical tag and then... 2. SEOmoz bot is concerned simply from a UI stand point, which then put me back to my first question: do you, as humans, consider those two pages as duplicate? Do you see there really the same content? Please, be careful: I am asking that from a "human" stand point (hence from a UI stand point), not from a SE stand point. I am sure that if I ask granny to tell me if those two pages look the same, she's gonna think I wanna make fun of her.Thoughts?

[fablau]

Why don't simply use the canonical tag? Aren't canonical tags made also for that?

[NaescentAdam]

Ha I guess so

I'm new to SEO so my tech side comes out... Why do it simply when you can over complicate it!

[EGOL]

I would hire an expert who knows how these things are handled by search engines.

[Doc_Sheldon]

I don't know how the mozbot analyzes that aspect of pages, so this may or may not be a factor in it declaring the two pages as duplicate. But the fact that all your metadata is nearly identical for the two pages can't be helping.

[fablau]

That's a good point I didn't think about... But the canonical tag should take care of that anyway, isnt't it?

UPDATE: I have looked at the meta tags (title and description), and they are not really identical...

[fablau]

I am sorry, but I don't see the pertinence of this answer. Are these forums to learn and discuss SEO or just to find potential SEO experts to hire?!

I hope someone else can help me to understand what I am trying to figure out on this thread.

Thanks!

[EGOL]

Fabrizo,

I am saying what I would do if this were my site.

You have posted many questions on this forum about this site and have gotten advice from many different people.

Forums are great places to learn and lots of people spend lots of time here and give very generous answers.

In my opinion this site has technical problems that you are only going to get solved when a really competent person has the time to study it thoroughly.

I am not trying to drum up work for myself by suggesting a pro.  I don't do SEO for hire.

I am just giving you my opinion on what is needed for this site.

Good luck.  I've given you my best and final thoughts.

[MattAntonino]

**Canonical for the first link:  **

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html" />

Canonical for the second link:

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html" />

---

You're telling search engines, including the Moz Bot, that the two pages have the exact same content as /score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html

Now I'll break this down simply.  First link is A, second link is B, canonical link is C.

A=C

B=C

Therefore A=B.

You've told bots that the mp3 tab is the same content (canonical) as the .html page.  You have told bots that the pdf tab is the same content (canonical) as the .html page.  Therefore if they are both duplicates of /score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html, they are duplicates of each other.

[MattAntonino]

From a human point of view they are different.  But humans don't manage bots, just bot rules.  Bot rules will follow logic and thus the answer I wrote out below is accurate.

IMHO your canonical tags are wrong.  That's the problem.  You have told bots that both pages are "the same" (canonical) to /score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html  They aren't - they have separate content.  By putting in the wrong canonical tags, you've confused search engines.  Bots follow the rules as stated.  Your rule says they are the same, so search bots treat them the same.

[fablau]

I am sorry Matt, but your statement puzzles me. I have "confused search engines"?Google states:

"A canonical page is the preferred version of a set of pages with highly similar content:"

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394

If SEOmoz bot tells me that those two pages are "duplicate" pages, and with the fact both pages belong to the same item, I don't see what's wrong using a canonical tag pointing to the "main" page of the same item.

[fablau]

I don't think with a canonical tag I tell search engines that those page are "identical", I just tell them that those pages can be "consolidated" as belonging to the same item. Or, as Google stated:

"A canonical page is the preferred version of a set of pages with highly similar content"

What's wrong with my canonical definition then??!!

[fablau]

Thank you for your advice, but I am not really a SEO newbie. I begun working on SEO back in 1996 and I have been mentored by Bruce Clay a big deal. I am aware of my website situation and I joined recently these forums trying to improve my SEO knowledge furthermore and to stay up-to-date.

Thank you again.