Roger keeps telling me my canonical pages are duplicates
-
I've got a site that's brand spanking new that I'm trying to get the error count down to zero on, and I'm basically there except for this odd problem. Roger got into the site like a naughty puppy a bit too early, before I'd put the canonical tags in, so there were a couple thousand 'duplicate content' errors. I put canonicals in (programmatically, so they appear on every page) and waited a week and sure enough 99% of them went away.
However, there's about 50 that are still lingering, and I'm not sure why they're being detected as such. It's an ecommerce site, and the duplicates are being detected on the product page, but why these 50? (there's hundreds of other products that aren't being detected). The URLs that are 'duplicates' look like this according to the crawl report:
http://www.site.com/Product-1.aspx
http://www.site.com/product-1.aspx
And so on. Canonicals are in place, and have been for weeks, and as I said there's hundreds of other pages just like this not having this problem, so I'm finding it odd that these ones won't go away.
All I can think of is that Roger is somehow caching stuff from previous crawls? According to the crawl report these duplicates were discovered '1 day ago' but that simply doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of messing up one or two pages on my part either; we made this site to be dynamically generated, and all of the SEO stuff (canonical, etc.) is applied to every single page regardless of what's on it.
If anyone can give some insight I'd appreciate it!
-
ThompsonPaul -
Thanks for that info, it pretty much nails exactly what I had discovered independently. This is an IIS7/Win2k8R2 install so luckily the rewriting is a bit easier than in previous iterations. The whole platform is hand coded by us (after the 10th ecommerce site or so you can generally do them in your sleep) so I don't have to worry about CMS implementation and the like, and luckily we already knew that about the spaces so they simply aren't allowed in the filenames. I'm in the middle of making a regex right now that is going to down-case anything in an href="" or src="" tag that will hopefully handle everything on the site side user-created or not. Will consider what to do in regards to external links a bit down the road I think.
-
Valery, you're definitely going to want to normalize your URLs to lowercase. This is a quirk of IIS that it actually respects case in URLs and will consider different case URLs as different pages.
In addition to the search engine problems it creates, it's also a major problem for usabilty - yours and your users. For example, a user who is trying to type in a direct URL can get a 404 error depending on what case they use.
More importantly, your Google Analytics will report on each of those version as separate pages, unless you write a normalizing filter into your GA profiles. Better to do that normalization for the actual site, not just your analytics
While rel=canonical can resolve a number of issues, I've always found it vastly better to correct the actual problem at its root, rather than rely on canonicalization as a catch-all. Anecdotally, I've found correcting issues like this with rewrites seems to allow affected pages to rank better than when just corrected with canonicalization. WIsh I could find time to do an actual case-study on that
Managing rewrites on IIS servers will require a plugin like asapi-rewrite as IIS doesn't handle it natively.
P.S. IIS will also allow and respect spaces in URLs. Users in Internet Explorer will see them as normal with spaces but browsers like Firefox will insert the html entity for a space (%20) into each necessary spot in the URL. This is again a mess for usability, so much better to force rewrite of all URLs to replace spaces with dashes when creating new pages. Many CMSs have plugins for this or you can also use sitewide rewrites to do it after the fact.
-
I think I get your point; the canonical is pointing to where the juice should go, but the URLs are still functionally different things. I'm guessing some sort of URL rewrite is in order, and to standardize how I do in-text links on the site (with user-editable content this part could be a pain).
-
Hey Valery,
I see those on closer inspection. I know it looks weird, but that's accurate. Your server must be UNIX or Linux so they will actually treat case as a different word.
For example: banana.com/pancakes.html would be treated differently than banana.com/PanCakes.html.
So if you have any pages generated dynamically or otherwise that differ only in case, then they will be tagged as duplicate.
In your CSV file you can see the duplicates being caused by case. I'd also be happy to help provide a few specific examples but would want to generate a ticket for you so we don't divulge any private information.
Cheers,
Joel.
-
Joel -
Thanks a lot for looking into that. The pages are very similar, so I'm not surprised they're being duplicate triggered; but what does surprise me is that they are apparently being considered duplicate to a canonical version of themselves? When I click on the duplicate list I'm expecting to see:
Product1.aspx
Product1-Blue.aspx
Product1-Red.aspx
But instead I'm seeing:
Product1.aspx
product1.aspx
product1.ASPX
And so on. The first scenario to me implies that the 3 pages are duplicate to each other, whereas the second is saying that there's either a canonical problem or I literally have different-case versions of those files.
-
Hi Valery,
I took a peek at your campaign and it looks like those few remaining duplicate pages are in fact different, but very minor differences. Basically there's pages for different sizes of things.
While being different, they vary in such minute ways that Roger see's them as duplicates.
I Hope that answers the question.
Thanks,
Joel.
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
-
403 error but page is fine??
Hi, on my report im getting 4xx error. When i look into it it says the error is crital fo4r 403 error on this page https://gaspipes.co.uk/contact-us/ i can get to the page and see it fine but no idea why its showing a 403 error or how to fix it. This is the only page that the error is coming up on, is there anything i can check/do to get this resolved? Thanks
Moz Pro | | JU-Mark0 -
Duplicate Content/Missing Meta Description | Pages DO NOT EXISIT!
Hello all, For the last few months, Moz has been showing us that our site has roughly 2,000 duplicate content errors. Pages that were actually duplicate content, I took care of accordingly using best practice (301 redirects, canonicalization,etc.). Still remaining after these fixes were errors showing for pages that we have never created. Our homepage is www.primepay.com. An example of pages that are being shown as duplicate content is http://primepay.com/blog/%5BLink%20to%20-%20http:/www.primepay.com/en/payrollservices/payroll/payroll/payroll/online-payroll with a referring page of http://primepay.com/blog/%5BLink%20to%20-%20http:/www.primepay.com/en/payrollservices/payroll/payroll/online-payroll. Some of these are even now showing up as 403 and 404 errors. The only real page on our site within that URL strand is primepay.com/payroll or primepay.com/payroll/online-payroll. Therefore, I am not sure where Moz is getting these pages from. Another issue we are having in relation to duplicate content is that moz is showing old campaign url’s tacked on to our blog page i.e. http://primepay.com/blog?title=&page=2&utm_source=blog&utm_medium=blogCTA&utm_campaign=IRSblogpost&qt-blog_tabs=1. As of this morning, our duplicate content went from 2,000 to 18,000. I exported all of our crawl diagnostics data and looked to see what the referring pages were, and even they are not pages that we have created. When you click on these links, they take you to a random point in time from the homepage of our blog; some dating back to 2010. I checked our crawl stats in both Google and Bing’s Webmaster tool, and there are no duplicate content or 400 level errors being reporting from their crawl. My team is truly at a loss with trying to resolve this issue and any help with this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Moz Pro | | PrimePay0 -
Keyword stuffing - on page grader count
I used the on page grader for my homepage, www.cprnj.com, and it said the keyword "physical therapy" was used 26 times in the body of the page. But I can't find more than 4. How exactly is keyword stuffing accounted for, and is there some place that I am not seeing the keywords?
Moz Pro | | CPRNJ-JC0 -
Rel="canonical" tag is implemented in my product pages, but still getting canoncal error for products in Moz. What is the problem? me or MOZ?
I have included the rel="canonical" tag in all my product pages, but still getting canonical error in MOZ reports for more than 6 month ! I would like to know if my code is wrong or the MOZ report system is not working properly. Here is an example of my canonical code in line 84 rel="canonical" href="http://www.doornmore.com/slab-single-door-80-fiberglass-courtlandt-1-panel-arch-lite-glass.html" /> Thanks Shayann
Moz Pro | | Shayann0 -
Duplicate Page Titles & Content
We have just launched a new version of a website and after running it through SEOMOZ we have over 6000 duplicate title & content errors. (awesome) 😕 We have products that show up multiple times under different URLs however we "thought" we had implemented the rel=canonical correctly. My question is - do these errors still show up in SEOMOZ despite the canonical tags being there OR if they were "correct" would we be getting "zero" errors?
Moz Pro | | ZaddleMarketing0 -
Why does Rel Canonical show up as a notice?
In the crawl diagnostics screen "Rel Canonical" shows up as a notice for every page that has a rel="canonical" meta tag in it. Why is this the case? Shouldn't every page have a canonical tag on it to show the absolute URL to the content? Wouldn't a better notice be to display pages that do not have a canonical tag instead? I could be wrong but that would make more sense to me. (In fact.. let's be honest here.. I probably am wrong.. but I'd like someone to explain it if they could.) Thanks
Moz Pro | | rrolfe1 -
Reports for page titles
Is there a report I can run on SEOmoz that shows me the page titles for all pages on my website, along with the link to each page?
Moz Pro | | TalarMade0 -
Too Many On-Page Links: Crawl Diag vs On-Page
I've got a site I'm optimizing that has thousands of 'too many links on-page' warnings from the SeoMoz crawl diagnostic. I've been in there and realized that there are indeed, the rent is too damned high, and it's due to a header/left/footer category menu that's repeating itself. So I changed these links to NoFollow, cutting my total links by about 50 per page. I was too impatient to wait for a new crawl, so I used the On Page Reports to see if anything would come up on the Internal Link Count/External Link Count factors, and nothing did. However, the crawl (eventually) came back with the same warning. I looked at the link Count in the crawl details, and realized that it's basically counting every single '<a href'="" on="" the="" page.="" because="" of="" this,="" i="" guess="" my="" questions="" are="" twofold:<="" p=""></a> <a href'="" on="" the="" page.="" because="" of="" this,="" i="" guess="" my="" questions="" are="" twofold:<="" p="">1. Is no-follow a valid strategy to reduce link count for a page? (Obviously not for SeoMoz crawler, but for Google)</a> <a href'="" on="" the="" page.="" because="" of="" this,="" i="" guess="" my="" questions="" are="" twofold:<="" p="">2. What metric does the On-Page Report use to determine if there are too many Internal/External links? Apologies if this has been asked, the search didn't seem to come up with anything specific to this.</a>
Moz Pro | | icecarats0