Using canonical for duplicate contents outside of my domain
-
I have 2 domains for the same company, example.com and example.sg
Sometimes we have to post the same content or event on both websites so to protect my website from duplicate content plenty i use canonical tag to point to either .com or .sg depend on the page.
Any idea if this is the right decision
Thanks
-
Unfortunately, that's a lot more tricky. If you're trying to rank both the .com and .sg version for, let's say, US residents, and those sites have duplicate content, then you do run the risk of Google filtering one of them out. If you use canonical tags or something like that, then one site will be taken out of contention for ranking - in that case, you won't rank for both sites on the same term. The only way to have your cake and eat it too is to make the sites as unique as possible.
Even then, you're potentially going to duplicate effort and cannibalize your own rankings, so it's a risky proposition. In some cases, it may be better to try to promote your social profiles and other pages outside of your site that have some authority. It doesn't have to be your own site ranking, just a site that's generally positive or neutral.
-
Thanks Peter you answer has enrich the discussion
I think your suggestion is the proper way for different local domains versions of the same company or blog
My case is little different that actually lately i am trying to rank both of them in the seek of reputation management
It wasn't intended to be like that on the beginning but now we are trying to take advantage of our other local domain like .sg , .ch and .ae
-
Do you want the .sg site to only rank regionally in Singapore? You could use rel=alternate hreflang to designate the language/region for the two sites, and help Google more accurately know when to display which sites. This also acts as a soft canonicalization signal and tells Google that the pages are known duplicates:
-
Here's an article about rel=canonical where Dr. Pete answers some rel=canonical questions. With regards to rel=canonical passing PageRank he says:
"This is very difficult to measure, but if you use rel=canonical appropriately, and if Google honors it, then it appears to act similarly to a 301-redirect. We suspect it passes authority/PageRank for links to the non-canonical URL, with some small amount of loss (similar to a 301)."
http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
At the end of the following Matt Cutts video (2:10), he says that there isn't a lot of difference between the page rank passing via rel=canonical and page rank passing a 301 redirect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA
When it comes to the content of the page, yes, the two versions of the page should be pretty close to identical. I've seen Google refer to it as "highly similar". Here's what Google says:
"A large portion of the duplicate page’s content should be present on the canonical version. One test is to imagine you don’t understand the language of the content—if you placed the duplicate side-by-side with the canonical, does a very large percentage of the words of the duplicate page appear on the canonical page? If you need to speak the language to understand that the pages are similar; for example, if they’re only topically similar but not extremely close in exact words, the canonical designation might be disregarded by search engines."
See: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
So, if your pages are too dissimilar then Google may ignore the rel-canonical "suggestion" and the "wrong page" or both pages may appear in Google's index.
-
i think this is useful resource that answer a lot of questions around canonical
-
Thanks Doug for your useful response
Just i need to clarify your sentence
"Be aware that the value of any inbound links to that article will be allocated to the canonical version. "
Do you mean canonical link is passing the page rank similar to 301 Redirect?
What if the 2 pages wasnt 100% identical ?
-
Check this Video Out : http://moz.com/blog/handling-duplicate-content-across-large-numbers-of-urls
-
Yes, this sounds absolutely correct.
You can check it's working by doing a search for some unique content in your article or using the query with the article's title:
site:{domain} "title"
If everything is working correctly you should only see the canonical version of the article in Google's index. (you can also use the inurl: to check too.
Be aware that the value of any inbound links to that article will be allocated to the canonical version. (This doesn't apply to social follows/likes though.) So think carefully about the audience for the article before deciding which version is canonical.
It may not apply in your case, but it can be a good idea to think about your readers too. By adding a link in the article to the other site, you can help to cross-promote them. You may find tat if some of your visitors find your cross posted article relevant and useful to them they may be more interested in other article on the source site.
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
-
Duplicate content analysis
Hi all,We have some pages being flagged as duplicates by the google search console. However, we believe the content on these pages is distinctly different (for example, they have completely different search results returned, different headings etc). An example of two pages google finds to be duplicates is below. if anyone can spot what might be causing the duplicate issue here, would very much appreciate suggestions! Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | Eric_S
Examples: https://www.vouchedfor.co.uk/IFA-financial-advisor-mortgage/harborne
https://www.vouchedfor.co.uk/accountant/harborne0 -
Google selecting incorrect URL as canonical: 'Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical'
Hi there, A number of our URLs are being de-indexed by Google. When looking into this using Google Search Console the same message is appearing on multiple pages across our sites: 'Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical' 'IndexingIndexing allowed? YesUser-declared canonical - https://www.mrisoftware.com/ie/products/real-estate-financial-software/Google-selected canonical - https://www.mrisoftware.com/uk/products/real-estate-financial-software/'Has anyone else experienced this problem?How can I get Google to select the correct, user-declared canoncial? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | nfrank0 -
Use 301 or rel=canonical
I have a page on my site that is showing in search results at #9. I created another page on my site with the search term in the url. Wondering if I 301 or rel=canonical. Thank you, Kerry
Technical SEO | | Hydraulicgirl0 -
Internal duplicated content on articles, when is too much?
I have an automotive rental blog with articles that explain the pros of renting a specific model. So in this articles the advantages of rental versus the buying of a new model. This advantages are a list with bullets like this:
Technical SEO | | markovald
Rental | Buy new car
Rental:
Free car insurance
Free assistance
etc.
Buy new car
You have to pay insurance
You have to pay assistance
etc. etc. I want to do this because i want to make all articles like landing pages...
This "advantages box" have 100 characters. The general length of articles on my blog is 500/600 characters. So i have an average of 15/20% internal duplicated content on all my articles. Is this bad for seo? Any alternatives?0 -
Duplicate content on job sites
Hi, I have a question regarding job boards. Many job advertisers will upload the same job description to multiple websites e.g. monster, gumtree, etc. This would therefore be viewed as duplicate content. What is the best way to handle this if we want to ensure our particular site ranks well? Thanks in advance for the help. H
Technical SEO | | HiteshP0 -
Duplicate Content Problems
Hi I am new to the seomoz community I have been browsing for a while now. I put my new website into the seomoz dashboard and out of 250 crawls I have 120 errors! So the main problem is duplicate content. We are a website that finds free content sources for popular songs/artists. While seo is not our main focus for driving traffic I wanted to spend a little time to make sure our site is up to standards. With that said you can see when two songs by an artist are loaded. http://viromusic.com/song/125642 & http://viromusic.com/song/5433265 seomoz is saying that it is duplicate content even though they are two completely different songs. I am not exactly sure what to do about this situation. We will be adding more content to our site such as a blog, artist biographies and commenting maybe this will help? Although if someone was playing multiple bob marley songs the biography that is loaded will also be the same for both songs. Also when a playlist is loaded http://viromusic.com/playlist/sldvjg on the larger playlists im getting an error for to many links on the page. (some of the playlists have over 100 songs) any suggestions? Thanks in advance and any tips or suggestions for my new site would be greatly appreciated!
Technical SEO | | mikecrib10 -
Duplicate Content Errors
Ok, old fat client developer new at SEO so I apologize if this is obvious. I have 4 errors in one of my campaigns. two are duplicate content and two are duplicate title. Here is the duplicate title error Rare Currency And Old Paper Money Values and Information.
Technical SEO | | Banknotes
http://www.antiquebanknotes.com/ Rare Currency And Old Paper Money Values and Information.
http://www.antiquebanknotes.com/Default.aspx So, my question is... What do I need to do to make this right? They are the same page. in my page load for default.aspx I have this: this.Title = "Rare Currency And Old Paper Money Values and Information."; And it occurs only once...0 -
Duplicate Content issue
I have been asked to review an old website to an identify opportunities for increasing search engine traffic. Whilst reviewing the site I came across a strange loop. On each page there is a link to printer friendly version: http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes That page also has a link to a printer friendly version http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes&printfriendly=yes and so on and so on....... Some of these pages are being included in Google's index. I appreciate that this can't be a good thing, however, I am not 100% sure as to the extent to which it is a bad thing and the priority that should be given to getting it sorted. Just wandering what views people have on the issues this may cause?
Technical SEO | | CPLDistribution0