Update in Moz spider/tools?? Flagging duplicate content / ignoring canonical

[LawrenceNeal]

Hi all,

Has there been an update in the SEOmoz crawling software?

We now have thousands of dupe content/page title warnings for paginated product page URLs that have correctly formatted canonicals.

e.g.

http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx

... has following pages with identical content that have been flagged:

http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4

http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=6

http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4

..plus 4 more URL's.

But they all have canonical set. There's even a notice at the bottom of report that tells us there's a canonical set to http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx

What gives, SEOmoz ??

Thanks

Michael

[EEE3]

Hi Michael,

Not sure if this helps you out at all, but I found this about the canonicals and SEOMoz crawl report in a previous Q http://mz.cm/11erRj6:

As far as the SEOmoz crawl reports go, not that setting a canonical won't stop these pages being reported as duplicate content.

From the help:

"Keep in mind that that canonicals will stop the pages from ranking against each other, but they will still show up as duplicate content from a UI perspective, so we will still count them as duplicate."

I have the same issues on my accounts. I'm focusing on making the pages content as unique as possible, or using the "noindex, follow" meta tags to see if that makes a difference.

I know you may have a lot of pages on your website, but perhaps writing short descriptions on your products would help. It might be worthwhile, but completely understandable that it may be a huge undertaking if you have hundreds or thousands of pages.

[LawrenceNeal]

Hi there,

Thanks for your response.

It's not product page A being seen as a duplicate of product page B etc, but several versions of product A seen as duplicate due to pagination, stemming from reviews for the products that span several pages, so making the rest of the content, titles etc different other than the (crawlable) reviews isn't really an option.

Will look more into "noindex, follow" tags in pagination.

We could have a  View All page for indexing showing all reviews (with lots of scrolling!) , with the paginated versions canonicalized  to that version (could still serve the paginated version of product page from site navigation perhaps with  "noindex, follow" meta tag) Text doesn’t take long to load and this approach would consolidate the review content.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html

Other option is to use rel=”prev” and rel=”next” implementation which shows Google the relationship between the pages (not sure if it will still be flagged as dupe content in SEOmoz though! Depends if they follow the tag). This way individual pages might get indexed (not sure if that's a good thing?!) perhaps if there's something in a review from (say) page 5 of the product reviews.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html

Ideally I'd like to implement all reviews on one page and hide them with a facebook-style 'See more' function. Not sure if that counts as hiding content? Will look into this.

[EEE3]

We use the "See more" script on our sites, and from what I understand, at least from other Mozzers, this is an okay practice. http://www.seomoz.org/q/using-more-info-javascript-toggledisplay-tag-for-more-info-text

We also use the rel="prev" and rel="next" to some success, but I can't comment on how that's functioning canonical-wise, because IT WAS DROPPED from our latest redesign and is going to be added to our client's website in the latest release. Oye.

I'd love to hear how this works out for you. There are some really great Mozzers on here with loads of experience about canonical tags and duplicate page issues. Can't wait to see what they have to contribute.

[ChiarynMiranda]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for writing in. I already emailed you in response to the ticket you sent in to the Help Desk, but I will copy my answer here for you review.

--

I looked into your campaign and it seems that this is happening because of where your canonical tags are pointing. These pages are considered duplicates because their canonical tags point to different URLs. For example, http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx is considered a duplicate of http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx?p=true&rspage=4 because the canonical tag for the first page is http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx while the canonical for the second URL ishttp://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx, with one URL showing tweed-green and the other showing olive-green.

Since the canonical tags point to different URLs it is assumed that http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx and http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/olive-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx are likely to be duplicates themselves.

Here is how our system interprets duplicate content vs. rel canonical:

Assuming A, B, C, and D are all duplicates,

If A references B as the canonical, then they are not considered duplicates
If A and B both reference C as canonical, A and B are not considered duplicates of each other
If A references C as a canonical, A and B are considered duplicated
If A references C as canonical, B references D, then A and B are considered duplicates
The examples you've provided actually fall into the fourth example I've listed above.

I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

--

-Chiaryn

[LawrenceNeal]

Oh, brilliant (re: "See more" aspect)  Thanks for the info. Will let you how we tackle this and the repercussions (!) and look forward to hearing how you get on also!

[LawrenceNeal]

Hi Chiaryn,

Thanks for reply and explanation.  The different colour-specific pages e.g.  Tweed Green and  Olive Green have some different content but it's nothing like enough in cases of two greens, two blues etc. as we simplify colour names for search so when there is an Olive and a Tweed Green they both end up having 'Green' as variable in page title, H1 etc.   Will fix this.

Do you think the reviews at the bottom of the pages will also trigger dupe content warning? i.e. even if we make all other on-page elements unique for each colour url? (page title, H1, H2, prod description etc) The reviews are quite extensive and are the same on all the separate colour specific product page versions of each style and was thinking today whether we should remove them from these colour product pages (OR perhaps let the colour product pages have their OWN reviews)

http://www.woolovers.com/british-wool/mens/tweed-green/wool-countryman-suede-patch-sweater.aspx

Thanks again

[ChiarynMiranda]

Hey Lawrence,

Campaigns have a 95% tolerance for duplicate content. This includes all the source code on the page and not just the viewable text. So if a URL is at least 95% similar in code and content to another URL, this warning will appear.

You can run your own tests using this tool: http://www.webconfs.com/similar-page-checker.php

We don't know what standard Google uses, but it's safe to say they are a bit more sophisticated than us - so you might be okay in this regard as long as you have a couple hundred words of unique text and some unique coding per page. Google won't say how much duplicate content is too much, so we like to be better safe than sorry.

I hope this help. Let me know if you need further assistance.

-Chiaryn