Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Duplicate without user-selected canonical excluded
-
We have pdf files uploaded in the media of wordpress and used in our website. As these pdfs are duplicate content of the original publishers, we have marked links to these pdf urls as nofollow. These pages are also disallowed in robots.txt
Now, Google Search Console has shown these pages Excluded as "Duplicate without user-selected canonical"
As it comes out we cannot use canonical tag with pdf pages so as to point to the original pdf source
If we embed a pdf viewer in our website and fetch the pdfs by passing the urls of the original publisher, would the pdfs be still read as text by google and again create duplicate content issue? Another thing, when the pdf expires and is removed, it would lead to 404 error.
If we direct our users to the third party website, then it would add up to our bounce rate.
What should be the appropriate way to handle duplicate pdfs?
Thanks
-
From what I have read, so much of the web is duplicate content so it really doesn't matter if the pdf is on other sites; let google figure it out. (example, every car brand dealer has a pdf of the same car model brochure on their dealer site) No big deal. Visitors will be landing on your site from other search relevance - the duplicate pdf doesn't matter. Just my take. Adrian
-
Sorry, I mean pdf files only
-
As the pdf pages are marked as a duplicate and not the pdf files, then you should check which page has duplicate content compared to it, and take the needed measures (canonical tags or 301 redirect) form the page with less rank to the page with more rank. Alternatively, you can edit the content so that it isn't anymore duplicate.
If I had a link to the site and duplicate pages, I would be able to give you a more detailed response.
Daniel Rika - Dalerio Consulting
https://dalerioconsulting.com/
[email protected] -
Hello Daniel
The pdfs are duplicates from another site.
The thing is that we have already disallowed the pdfs in the robots.txt file.
Now, what happened is this - We have a set of pages (let's call them content pages) which we had disallowed in the robots file as they had thin content. Those pages have links to their respective third party pdfs, which have been marked as nofollow. The pdfs are also disallowed in the robots file.
Few days back, we improved our content pages and removed them from robots file so that they can be indexed. Pdfs are still disallowed. Despite being disallowed, we have come across this issue with the pdf pages as "Duplicate without user-selected canonical."
I hope I make myself clear. Any insights now please.
-
If the pdfs are duplicate within your own site, then the best solution would be for you to link to the same document from different sources. Then you can delete the duplicated documents and 301 redirect them to the original.
If the pdfs are duplicate from another site, then disallowing them on robots.txt will stop them from being marked as a duplicate, as the crawler will not be able to access them at all. It will just take some time for them to be updated on google search console.
If however, you want to add canonical tags to the pdf documents (or other non-HTML documents), you can add it to the HTTP header through the .htaccess file. You can find a tutorial on how to do that in this article.
Daniel Rika - Dalerio Consulting
https://dalerioconsulting.com/
[email protected]
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
-
Can I use duplicate content in different US cities without hurting SEO?
So, I have major concerns with this plan. My company has hundreds of facilities located all over the country. Each facility has it's own website. We have a third party company working to build a content strategy for us. What they came up with is to create a bank of content specific to each service line. If/when any facility offers that service, they then upload the content for that service line to that facility website. So in theory, you might have 10-12 websites all in different cities, with the same content for a service. They claim "Google is smart, it knows its content all from the same company, and because it's in different local markets, it will still rank." My contention is that duplicate content is duplicate content, and unless it is "localize" it, Google is going to prioritize one page of it and the rest will get very little exposure in the rankings no matter where you are. I could be wrong, but I want to be sure we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot with this strategy, because it is a major major undertaking and too important to go off in the wrong direction. SEO Experts, your help is genuinely appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MJTrevens1 -
Rel=canonical and internal links
Hi Mozzers, I was musing about rel=canonical this morning and it occurred to me that I didnt have a good answer to the following question: How does applying a rel=canonical on page A referencing page B as the canonical version affect the treatment of the links on page A? I am thinking of whether those links would get counted twice, or in the case of ver-near-duplicates which may have an extra sentence which includes an extra link, whther that extra link would count towards the internal link graph or not. I suspect that google would basically ignore all the content on page A and only look to page B taking into account only page Bs links. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unirmk0 -
Case Sensitive URLs, Duplicate Content & Link Rel Canonical
I have a site where URLs are case sensitive. In some cases the lowercase URL is being indexed and in others the mixed case URL is being indexed. This is leading to duplicate content issues on the site. The site is using link rel canonical to specify a preferred URL in some cases however there is no consistency whether the URLs are lowercase or mixed case. On some pages the link rel canonical tag points to the lowercase URL, on others it points to the mixed case URL. Ideally I'd like to update all link rel canonical tags and internal links throughout the site to use the lowercase URL however I'm apprehensive! My question is as follows: If I where to specify the lowercase URL across the site in addition to updating internal links to use lowercase URLs, could this have a negative impact where the mixed case URL is the one currently indexed? Hope this makes sense! Dave
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | allianzireland0 -
Pagination duplicate title and meta description
Hello, Getting a lot of duplicate title and meta description errors via google webmaster tools. For best SEO practices, do i no-index the page/2's, page/3's...? More importantly, i see how MOZ did it by adding "page 3" to their titles such as http://a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/blog?page=3. Is that a better way of doing it? If so, how do i do that on Yoast SEO? Thank you so much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Duplicate Title tags even with rel=canonical
Hello, We were having duplicate content in our blog (a replica of each post automatically was done by the CMS), until we recently implemented a rel=canonical tag to all the duplicate posts (some 5 weeks ago). So far, no duplicate content were been found, but we are still getting duplicate title tags, though the rel=canonical is present. Any idea why is this the case and what can we do to solve it? Thanks in advance for your help. Tej Luchmun
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | luxresorts0 -
[E-commerce] Duplicate content due to color variations (canonical/indexing)
Hello, We currently have a lot of color variations on multiple products with almost the same content. Even with our canonicals being set, Moz's crawling tool seems to flag them as duplicate content. What we have done so far: Choosing the best-selling color variation (our "master product") Adding a rel="canonical" to every variation (with our "master product" as the canonical URL) In my opinion, it should be enough to address this issue. However, being given the fact that it's flagged as duplicate by Moz, I was wondering if there is something else we should do? Should we add a "noindex,follow" to our child products and "index,follow" to our master product? (sounds to me like such a heavy change) Thank you in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EasyLounge0 -
How to Remove Joomla Canonical and Duplicate Page Content
I've attempted to follow advice from the Q&A section. Currently on the site www.cherrycreekspine.com, I've edited the .htaccess file to help with 301s - all pages redirect to www.cherrycreekspine.com. Secondly, I'd added the canonical statement in the header of the web pages. I have cut the Duplicate Page Content in half ... now I have a remaining 40 pages to fix up. This is my practice site to try and understand what SEOmoz can do for me. I've looked at some of your videos on Youtube ... I feel like I'm scrambling around to the Q&A and the internet to understand this product. I'm reading the beginners guide.... any other resources would be helpful.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | deskstudio0 -
Does rel=canonical fix duplicate page titles?
I implemented rel=canonical on our pages which helped a lot, but my latest Moz crawl is still showing lots of duplicate page titles (2,000+). There are other ways to get to this page (depending on what feature you clicked, it will have a different URL) but will have the same page title. Does having rel=canonical in place fix the duplicate page title problem, or do I need to change something else? I was under the impression that the canonical tag would address this by telling the crawler which URL was the URL and the crawler would only use that one for the page title.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | askotzko0