Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I second what Ray says, having the rule in your .htaccess file is always a good practice. Especially to prevent the annoyance of seeing both versions in your Google Analytics. This question was answered in another Moz Q&A, and although it's from 2012 the responses are still good.

Hi Taysir, I can only assume because you didn't include the actual site. But it looks like that one is indeed the mobile site and is using the second menu to serve users on mobile. It's not the best way out there as you could perfectly use the same menu on mobile as well. Probably it won't get you into deep trouble anyway.

For the most part I'm going to restrict my answer to the technical part of your question but do have a think about whether the pages are actually duplicates. If they represent different franchises of companies then they may well be relevant content pages. Think in terms of resources. You can't assume the query string will remain undiscovered by Google. It only takes someone linking with the query string attached for it to be found. Over time many of the near-duplicates may be discovered in this way. You can instruct Google on how to handle URL parameters.

Sounds good, Taysir:)

Hi everyone! I wanted to follow up with everyone who experienced the same issue. Unfortunately the moz crawler doesn't crawl any noindex,nofollow which proves its limits. There is another tool called screamingfrog that will allow you to crawl all the noindex, nofollow pages. This tool is literally saving me as I was able to detect many errors on the Beta Site. Without it we would have launched the new site and our SEO would have taken a major hit. Thanks!

Thank you Miriam!

Nope, you're good to go. Ifbyphone is a good service. I agree with Spencer, you should be good to go as long as the javascript is working correctly.

The instruction in the audit template is probably given to give you a 100% true view of what Google sees when it comes to the website, unobstructed by things meant for humans like cookies, javascript, etc. As Stephen says, Google traditionally does not accept cookies or execute javascript, or do a lot of things that are meant for usability (but may take some of this into account if it's being used for malicious purposes). This is not about whether cookies are "harmful" and you are not being instructed to turn off cookies on the website itself. You are being instructed to disable your browser from accepting cookies so you get an idea of what Google's experience on the website is like. Edited to add - posts like this are being shared, literally today, so keep an eye on the Google-accepting-cookies issue, but for the purpose of the site audit, it's just wanting to let you see what Google traditionally sees.

Thanks richard! Yes I did try to remove them first.

Thank you Guys! I resolved the issue! I think it was a caching issue!

Hi Taysir, Going on Google's wording, that blog post is correct - you do come across instances of people claiming disavowal has worked well when they've disavowed links they weren't responsible for building. The problem is convincing Google that you weren't responsible ("_If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action" - _there's a possibility that you can claim until you are blue in the face that you were not behind the links Google dislikes, and they still refuse to lift a penalty). I would go for a reconsideration request first if I were you, as the blog post recommends. I also consider disavowal a last resort when link removal fails - it was foreseeable that people would disavow without doing any other work (and I'm sure Google saw that coming too). For context, at my former agency we would spend months removing every bad link we could find for new clients before filing for reconsideration or using disavowal. One came to us with over 7,000 bad links in early 2013; we removed and removed and finally had the penalty lifted later in the year (it was worth it - it was a high-value domain otherwise). Explain everything you have done or tried to do in the reconsideration request. Be honest but as concise as possible, and cite your actions with things like spreadsheets of sites researched / contacted / failed to respond. In short, that blog post is also how we dealt with disavowal at my old agency. I'm sure it works for some people who disavow things they weren't responsible for, but the misuse I have seen of the tool is also really high. One person told me once they had disavowed one link in their backlink profile "to test impact." Ah... that's not what it's for.

Thanks Robert!

It isn't he exact same thing, so no, that particular knowledge graph doesn't show up because of rich snippets. I was just offering an alternative. XXX A

Hi Everyone, I recently asked this question http://moz.com/community/q/will-a-geo-localization-site-create-thousands-of-duplicates and is somewhat related to this thread. If anyone could help me out answering this question, that would be great! Thanks in advance!

Thank you guys for your contributions! Much appreciated!

Thank you Guys for all of your responses!

Thank you Federico!

Thanks Jeff!

Thank you guys for your help