Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
-
Good morning Moz...
This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest...
We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance
www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html
..could be reached via
www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or
www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on.
GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good.
This is the chain of events:
-
Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to.
-
Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified.
-
URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now)
-
Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I.
-
Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu:
http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI)
Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should.
Situation now:
-
Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated.
-
I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment)
I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page.
- The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows.
Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form
) include
A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct
B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL
C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty)
D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this.
Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation.
Do you?
Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
-
-
GWT numbers sometimes ignore parameter handling, oddly, and can be hard to read. I'm only seeing about 40 indexed pages with "ref" in the URL, which hardly seems disastrous. One note - once the pages get indexed, for whatever reason, de-indexing can take weeks, even if you do everything correctly. Don't change tactics every couple of days, or you're only going to make this worse, long-term. I think canonicals are fine for this, and they should be effective. It just may take Google some time to re-crawl and dis-lodge the pages. You actually may want to create an XML sitemap (for Google only) that just contains the "ref=" pages Google has indexed. This can nudge them to re-crawl and honor the canonical. Otherwise, the pages could sit there forever. You could 301-redirect - it would be perfectly valid in this case, since those URLs have no value to visitors. I wouldn't worry about the Bing sitemaps - just don't include the "ref=" URLs in the Bing maps, and you'll be fine.
-
Monday morning, still the same, still no reset/add parameters buttons in GMWT any more, still not understanding why Google is being so stubborn about this.
3 identical pages in the index, Google ignoring both GWMT URL parameter and canonical meta tag.
Sigh.
-
Nope, nice clean site map that GWMT says provides the right number of URLs with no 404s and no ?ref= links.
It's like Google has always indexed these links separately but for some reason has decided to only show them now they no longer exist..
-
They arent in your xml sitemap are they? You probably generated a new one when you moved the site over... that could possibly be overriding the parameters... maybe... weird...
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
-
I am trying to generate GEO meta tag for my website where on one page there are multiple locations My question is, Can I add GEO tagging for every address?
Am I restricted to 1 geo tag per page or can i add multiple geo tags ?
Technical SEO | | lina_digital0 -
Why Google crawl parameter URLs?
Hi SEO Masters, Google is indexing this parameter URLs - 1- xyz.com/f1/f2/page?jewelry_styles=6165-4188-4184-4192-4180-6109-4191-6110&mode=li_23&p=2&filterable_stone_shapes=4114 2- xyz.com/f1/f2/page?jewelry_styles=6165-4188-4184-4192-4180-4169-4195&mode=li_23&p=2&filterable_stone_shapes=4115&filterable_metal_types=4163 I have handled by Google parameter like this - jewelry_styles= Narrows Let Googlebot decide mode= None Representative URL p= Paginates Let Googlebot decide filterable_stone_shapes= Narrows Let Googlebot decide filterable_metal_types= Narrows Let Googlebot decide and Canonical for both pages - xyz.com/f1/f2/page?p=2 So can you suggest me why Google indexed all related pages with this - xyz.com/f1/f2/page?p=2 But I have no issue with first page - xyz.com/f1/f2/page (with any parameter). Cononical of first page is working perfectly. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Rajesh.Prajapati
Rajesh0 -
Self referencing canonicals AND duplicate URLs. Have I set them up correctly?
Hi team, We've recently redesigned our website. Originally we had separate product listings for every product. Even if there was one design in two colours, each colour had its own listing. With the redesign we merged all of these identical products to help with duplicate content. Customers can now browse the different stone colours available in that design from a single product listing (bottom left of screen under 'select a stone' on a product page) When the customer changes the stone colour, the product images change to the new colour and its product code is appended to the end of the existing URL. eg: http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/ (original listing) http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/?sku=JC1725BL (black selected) We have the following self referencing canonicals on all product pages [current-page:url:absolute], yet MOZ is telling me I have alot of duplicate content on pages with the above example. Have I implemented the canonicals correctly? Is this why Moz is flagging the listings as duplicate?
Technical SEO | | Jacobsheehan0 -
Implemented google adwords via tag manager do it still require to paste script at thank you page?
Hi All Experts, I have implemented google adwords with tag manager, so now query is still it is required to place the google adwords scripts at thank you page?
Technical SEO | | varo0 -
De-indexed from Google
Hi Search Experts! We are just launching a new site for a client with a completely new URL. The client can not provide any access details for their existing site. Any ideas how can we get the existing site de-indexed from Google? Thanks guys!
Technical SEO | | rikmon0 -
Page not being indexed
Hi all, On our site we have a lot of bookmaker reviews, and we are ranking pretty good for most bookmaker names as keywords, however a single bookmaker seems to have been shunned by Google. For a search "betsafe" in Denmark, this page does not appear among the top 50: http://www.betxpert.com/bookmakere/betsafe All of our other review pages rank in top 10-20 for the bookmaker name as keyword. What to do if Google has "banned" a page? Best regards, Rasmus
Technical SEO | | rasmusbang0 -
Duplicate Page Content
Hi within my campaigns i get an error "crawl errors found" that says duplicate page content found, it finds the same content on the home pages below. Are these seen as two different pages? And how can i correct these errors as they are just one page? http://poolstar.net/ http://poolstar.net/Home_Page.php
Technical SEO | | RouteAccounts0