How detrimental is duplicate page content?
-
We have a local site wherein we have multiple advanced search parameters based on facilities available at a particular place. So for instance, we list a set of fun places to take kids to in a city. We have a page for this. We now have ability to select a list of fun places that have parking facility available or which are "outdoor". Now we use parameters to address these additional search criteria. Would search engines treat them as duplicate pages and in case it would how detrimental would this be?
-
As others had answered before, if the pages with parameters are just a consequence of a filter, but don't actually add nothing relevant (aka: substantially duplicated of the not parametered URLs) or nothing all, than the best idea is having those URLs with noindex meta robots.
This will ensure that those pages, if they were crawled, will disappear from the index.
But this is just a general rule, because can exists many variations to that same rule (and we don't know how really has been developed your site).
For instance, if those pages cannot be physically crawl because the filters are behind a Javascript selector (something that can be verified disabling Java in the browser), then you should not suffer issues and, eventually, using the meta robots "noindex" should be just a prevention not really an intervention to something already happened.
-
If you no-index, any link pointing to that page will waste its link juice.
If you must do that no-index,follow so the link juice can flow back out.
if your site is mainly duplicates then you have a problem, but if it is just a few pages, don't worry.
google will give credit to one page and will disregard the others. -
I guess it depends how much duplication there is. If the pages contain completely duplicate content with no unique content at all then the best move would be to noindex or nofollow them. Otherwise rel=canonical is probably fine.
-
Does rel="canonical" only indicate to Google the preferred page or does it also indicate that the content on the current page is duplicate in nature? Should it be better if we actually remove these pages from the index by providing for a "noindex" on the page?
-
Duplicate content is detrimental but the issue is relatively easy to solve. Just ensure you add rel="canonical" tags to the duplicate pages to allow Google to identify and rank the preferred page.
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
-
GMB page for law not ranking but individual attorneys' names are
I'm kind of a newbie to everything marketing. I run the marketing for a small law firm. When I google certain keywords, the law firm's GMB page doesn't show up in the local pack or rankings. What shows up instead are the individual GMB pages under the lawyers' names even though we don't do anything to maintain those pages. Their individual pages don't have content or nearly as many reviews. I maintain the firm's GMB page by posting content and that's also where the bulk of our reviews go. Why would pages that aren't maintained show up in the local pack while the page that I keep a close eye on doesn't show up?
Local Listings | | elisa175910 -
Help - my boss wants me to duplicate websites for local SEO targeting
my boss is insisting that I duplicate a site that is ranking well and then roll it out across the UK on new domain names beginning with targeted city names in the domain name. I will then be going through each duplicate site changing the location keywords to the target city location Along with images etc. what effect will this have? Do you have any advice on the best way to tackle this? thanks
Local Listings | | platinumhouse0 -
Google My Business - duplicate and previous owner uncooperative
Hi there, One of my SEO clients, a summer camp, is having a problem with their GMB listing. They have two listings: the one they set up, with the correct address and other business info, and the one the previous camp owners set up, with an incorrect NAP. When we try to edit the duplicate listing, we're unable to verify that we own it because it's connected to the previous owner's phone number. They've passed away and their sons are now the contact, but they're not interested in helping out. Any suggestions on how to close the duplicate listing without being able to verify that it's your own business? Thanks, Susannah
Local Listings | | SusannahK.Noel0 -
My Evernote Notes showing up on Google Search page ?
I may just be living under a rock here in Reno, but tonight while doing a search (on desktop) for a phone number of a restaurant in Tahoe, Google served me a bunch of my Evernote notes along with my SERPS After the initial "WTFriday" moment, I realized that there was an "Evernote" bar above a series of images of what Google must think are related notes --- for example in a few weeks I am planning to take friends to Bliss & Rubicon - and I had saved the map in Evernote. Next to the map image were two notes related to daughters upcoming swim meet in South Tahoe. I did a similar search and this time a listing for hours at a local pool (near Tahoe) and two other documents came up. Since I live in Reno I thought it was odd to get all those Tahoe activities - but the fact that my Evernote on "Tahoe" things was there caught me off guard. The results were locate on the right hand where local business maps usually are -- the map and business info about the restaurant I was looking for appeared below that. ... while the left hand column features traditionals SERPs. . I am just trying to find out if I am late to the party on this ... or if serving data saved in my Evernote files is new... If anyone else has seen this, let me know. I could just be late to this. ...
Local Listings | | AJFanter0 -
Local Search - Multiple Locations, do i link the home page or the inner page?
Hello, For a business with multiple locations that has a web url built for each location such as: Website.com/miami Website.com/los-angeles For local search (Google+, Yelp, etc), is it best to link the local search pages to the specific page of that location? Or is the homepage sufficient enough? I ask that because it is ALREADY touch getting NATURAL links to a location page, so would local search do me good by linking to the exact page of the location?
Local Listings | | Shawn1241 -
Inconsistant & Duplicate Listings
Hey guys, Our agency inherited a client that no longer has all of their log-in information for a large number of listings. This is killing their rankings. Can anyone give us some advice on how to handle this? We subscribe to Moz Local, but it seems like it can only help so much (or so we think). Thanks in advanced for any advice!
Local Listings | | theideapeople0 -
NAPtastic: Google updated G+ page to "correct" street spelling, but not Maps
A client's G+ page updated from "Jimmy" to "Jimmie" Rd. The change is technically correct according to the legal county road name, though the Places, G+, and indeed even the printed inscription on the Google map itself all say "Jimmy." So, too, does virtually all of the NAP instances around the web. Question - should we update Business Registration Managers with the updated address info and assume the Google change will also eventually filter to other Google assets, or make no changes? Weird, right? Here's the Place: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Georgia+Square+Collision/@33.9357517,-83.4885575,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x57927ad08d139333 Thanks!
Local Listings | | PerfectPitchConcepts0 -
G+ Local Business Page vs. Brand Page Problems
I'm struggling a bit with a Brand page vs. Local page on G+ and wondering if anyone here has had this same problem and found a solution.... This is related to a business that has a does have a physical address for a head admin office, but they provides a financial service to people across Canada over the phone. So although the business has an address and local phone number for admin purposes, it doesn't want people showing up at that address and definitely doesn't want to be considered a "Local" business. However, Google automatically creates the local listing in google maps, which the business has claimed but otherwise does not want to maintain. Instead the business has a Brand page on G+ (not local) which it has linked to the domain and actively maintains as their G+ business page. The trouble is, Google is associating showing the local listing as the rich snippet in in their organic result instead of the Brand page. Is there anything the company can do to further help Google associate the Brand G+ page with the website instead of the local listing? I already tried removing the link to the website from the local listing in hopes that would dis-associate it with the domain. That got rid of the rich snippet, but now the local listing shows up as a separate organic result just below the main company website, which is just as bad or maybe worse. To confirm, the website IS linked to the BRAND page using rel=publisher, and the brand page does have a verified link to the company domain. Thanks for the help!
Local Listings | | PlusROI1