Glossary index and individual pages create duplicate content. How much might this hurt me?
-
I've got a glossary on my site with an index page for each letter of the alphabet that has a definition. So the M section lists every definition (the whole definition).
But each definition also has its own individual page (and we link to those pages internally so the user doesn't have to hunt down the entire M page).
So I definitely have duplicate content ... 112 instances (112 terms). Maybe it's not so bad because each definition is just a short paragraph(?)
How much does this hurt my potential ranking for each definition? How much does it hurt my site overall?
Am I better off making the individual pages no-index? or canonicalizing them?
-
Thanks, Ryan!
-
From here: http://moz.com/messages/write to Dirk's username: DC1611. There used to be a button in profiles, but it looks like it got shuffled in the redesign.
-
PM? Does Moz offer that function?
-
It's a bit difficult to assess which of the pages is more important without knowing the site. Having a lot of content is good - but if the only link between the content is that they all start with the same letter it could be pretty weak or pretty strong depending on the situation:
I'll give 2 examples :
Suppose that the index is on First names starting with S - in this case this page is a valuable one because a lot of people are searching for it - and the search volume is potentially bigger than the number of people that are looking for first name steve (= one specific item)
Suppose the index is about Illnesses starting with S - in this case the index page has very little value for a searcher, because people are searching illnesses based the symptoms -the fact that illnesses start with S doesn't link them together.
It could be helpful if you send me the actual url's via PM if you don't want to disclose them here.
rgds
Dirk
-
Oops. Sorry. Poor wording there. Meant to say ...
Definitely not concerned that the M index page and the M* definition** page BOTH show up in the search results.
We definitely do want at least one of the pages to not only show up in the rankings, but to rank highly. I'm guessing the M index page would actually have a chance of ranking high because it will have so many long tails related to our short-tail.
But it would seem weird to put a no-index on the M* definition** page ... since we have multiple internal links to those pages.
Thanks again for your patience. Really appreciate the feedback.
Steve
-
That's exactly what I am saying - your index page with all the definitions is from Google perspective completely different from the detailed definition page (the first one being much richer in content than the 2nd one). If getting these pages ranked is the least of concerns - you can keep it as it is. If you want to play on the safe side, you can put a noindex on the index page.
rgds,
Dirk
-
Just having a bit of a dilemma. Trying to make it easier for people who come to the glossary and then go to ... say ... the M page. Don't have to keep clicking away to see the definitions. Result: More user-friendly
But we also want to have a very specific definition page so that when we link from an article to the definition, the user doesn't have to see all of the M definitions. Result: More user-friendly.
Definitely not concerned that both the M index page and the M* definition** page show up in the search results. That would actually be swell. Just more concerned that our overall site ranking or domain authority will somehow suffer.
If you're saying that the M index page and the M* page** are dramatically different (because the M index page is much, much longer) and so I shouldn't worry, that's great. (Hope that's what you're saying.)
Thanks!
-
Hi,
As far as I understand it's not really a question of duplicate content in the SEO meaning. Although all the definitions starting with M are on the M-index page this page is quite different to the pages that contain the individual definitions of the terms that start with M.
A problem on many sites is that the pages that only contain the explanation of one term are very light in terms of content, and that the page with is listing all these terms is generally not very interesting from a user (and search perspective). I don't know your site, so difficult to assess if this is the case
You could make the index page noindex/follow - and just list the terms, linking to the explanation pages. For the explanation pages which are probably the most interesting for users & search engines: try to enrich them by adding more content, like links to articles on your site that use the term, or have more information on the term
Hope this helps,
Dirk
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
-
What to do when your home page an index for a series of pages.
I have created an index stack. My home page is http://www.southernwhitewater.com The home page is the index itself and the 1st page http://www.southernwhitewater.com/nz-adventure-tours-whitewater-river-rafting-hunting-fishing My home page (if your look at it through moz bat for chrome bar} incorporates all the pages in the index. Is this Bad? I would prefer to index each page separately. As per my site index in the footer What is the best way to optimize all these pages individually and still have the customers arrive at the top to a picture. rel= canonical? Any help would be great!! http://www.southernwhitewater.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VelocityWebsites0 -
HTTPS pages - To meta no-index or not to meta no-index?
I am working on a client's site at the moment and I noticed that both HTTP and HTTPS versions of certain pages are indexed by Google and both show in the SERPS when you search for the content of these pages. I just wanted to get various opinions on whether HTTPS pages should have a meta no-index tag through an htaccess rule or whether they should be left as is.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jamie.Stevens0 -
Tabs and duplicate content?
We own this site http://www.discountstickerprinting.co.uk/ and just a little concerned as I right clicked open in new tab on the tab content section and it went to a new page For example if you right click on the price tab and click open in new tab you will end up with the url
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson
http://www.discountstickerprinting.co.uk/#tabThree Does this mean that our content is being duplicated onto another page? If so what should I do?0 -
All Thin Content removed and duplicate content replaced. But still no success?
Good morning, Over the last three months i have gone about replacing and removing all the duplicate content (1000+ page) from our site top4office.co.uk. Now it been just under 2 months since we made all the changes and we still are not showing any improvements in the SERPS. Can anyone tell me why we aren't making any progress or spot something we are not doing correctly? Another problem is that although we have removed 3000+ pages using the removal tool searching site:top4office.co.uk still shows 2800 pages indexed (before there was 3500). Look forward to your responses!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | apogeecorp0 -
Duplicate Content Question
My understanding of duplicate content is that if two pages are identical, Google selects one for it's results... I have a client that is literally sharing content real-time with a partner...the page content is identical for both sites, and if you update one page, teh otehr is updated automatically. Obviously this is a clear cut case for canonical link tags, but I'm cuious about something: Both sites seem to show up in search results but for different keywords...I would think one domain would simply win out over the other, but Google seems to show both sites in results. Any idea why? Also, could this duplicate content issue be hurting visibility for both sites? In other words, can I expect a boost in rankings with the canonical tags in place? Or will rankings remain the same?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AmyLB0 -
Duplicate content issue for franchising business
Hi All We are in the process of adding a franchise model to our exisitng stand alone business and as part of the package given to the franchisee will be a website with conent identical to our existing website apart from some minor details such as contact and address details. This creates a huge duplicate content issue and even if we implement a cannonical approach to this will still be unfair to the franchisee in terms of their markeitng and own SEO efforts. The url for each franchise will be unique but the content will be the same to a large extend. The nature of the service we offer (professional qualificaitons) is such that the "products" can only be described in a certain way and it will be near on in impossible to have a unique set of "product" pages for each franchisee. I hope that some of you have come across a similar problem or that some of you have suggestions or ideas for us to get round this. Kind regards Peter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | masterpete0 -
Duplicate page content and Duplicate page title errors
Hi, I'm new to SeoMoz and to this forum. I've started a new campaign on my site and got back loads of error. Most of them are Duplicate page content and Duplicate page title errors. I know I have some duplicate titles but I don't have any duplicate content. I'm not a web developer and not so expert but I have the impression that the crawler is following all my internal links (Infact I have also plenty of warnings saying "Too many on-page links". Do you think this is the cause of my errors? Should I implement the nofollow on all internal links? I'm working with Joomla. Thanks a lot for your help Marco
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marcodublin0 -
Duplicate content - canonical vs link to original and Flash duplication
Here's the situation for the website in question: The company produces printed publications which go online as a page turning Flash version, and as a separate HTML version. To complicate matters, some of the articles from the publications get added to a separate news section of the website. We want to promote the news section of the site over the publications section. If we were to forget the Flash version completely, would you: a) add a canonical in the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? b) add a link in the footer of the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? c) both of the above? d) something else? What if we add the Flash version into the mix? As Flash still isn't as crawlable as HTML should we noindex them? Is HTML content duplicated in Flash as big an issue as HTML to HTML duplication?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0