How far can I push rel=canonical?
-
My plan: 3 sites with identical content, yet--wait for it--for every article whose topic is A, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site A. For every article whose topic is B, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site B.
So Site A will have some articles about topics A, B, and C. And for pages with articles about A, the rel=canonical will point to the page it's on. Yet for pages with articles about B, the rel=canonical will point to the version of that article on site B. Etc.
I have my reasons for planning this, but you can see more or less that I want each site to rank for its niche, yet I want the users at each site to have access to the full spectrum of articles in the shared articles database without having to leave a given site.
These would be distinct brands with distinct Whois, directory listings, etc. etc.
The content is quality and unique to our company.
-
I think I'd start slowly in that case. Keep the relationship aspect in mind, too. Even if all three companies know the writer/client and are aware of the relationship, sooner or later one of these articles is going to take off. If one site gets the SEO credit and the other two sites aren't ranking, there may be friction. Even if the work is spread out evenly and all high-quality, you don't control (ultimately) what content finally sticks and is successful. I just think things could get weird all-around if you send every article three places and only one gets credit.
-
These are technically different companies with different products, all of which are in the securities industry. They are each founded by different groups of individuals, however my client is common among them and happens to be a fantastic writer. Many of the articles would add value to the readers of some of the other sites. I am hoping to develop a common command center so that in the editor for a given article he is able to just check off which of his sites the article will be published at, and which is to be considered canonical. So the sites will have different aesthetics and navigation, product pages, and other company-specific content, and not every article will show up on every site, however many will show up at multiple sites.
The idea of phasing in common articles with the cross-domain canonical strikes me as wise, and then just noindexing the non-canonical versions if I run into trouble.
-
Ah, understood. So, yes, in theory cross-domain canonical does handle this. I know major newspapers that use it for true syndication. There is risk, though, depending on the sites and content, and there is a chance Google will ignore it (moreso than in-domain canonical). So, I mostly wanted you to be aware of those risks.
META NOINDEX is safer, in some respects (Google is more likely to honor it), but if people start linking to multiple versions of the content, then you may lose the value of those inbound links on the NOINDEX'ed content. Since it's not showing up in search results, that's less likely (in other words, people are going to be most inclined to link to the canonical version), but it's a consideration.
It's really tough to give a recommendation without understanding the business model, but if you absolutely have to have separate sites and you feel that this content is valuable to the visitors of all three sites, then cross-domain canonical is an option. It's just not risk-free. Personally, I'd probably start with unique content across the three domains, then phase in the most useful pieces as duplicates with canonical. Measure and see how it goes. Don't launch 1,000 duplicates on three sites in one day.
-
Budget not an issue, although skilled labor is.
-
Very helpful, thank you!
There is in fact a legal reason why the sites must be distinct from each other and strong marketing reasons why we do need more than one site.
I should mention that although the pages hosting the shared articles will be 99% identical, each site will have other content distinct from the others.
I am open to dropping my idea to share an article database between the sites and just having unique content on each, although I have to wonder what the use of cross-domain canonical is, if not to support this kind of article syndication.
-
Completely agree with dr Peter. If you really need to separate those domains it should be a really good reason.
In my past I used to have many EMD domain to get easy traffic thanks to the domain name boost in serps and so those sites were ranking without many efforts, but after google heading more towards brands this kind of strategy is really time and money consuming.
It really depends on how much budget you may spend on those sites, but normally consolidating the value in one bigger site is the best way to build a brand and achieve links and ranks nowadays.
-
I tend to agree - you always run the risk with cross-domain canonical that Google might not honor it, and the you've got a major duplicate content problem on your hands.
I think there's a simpler reason, in most cases, though. Three unique sites/brands take 3X (or more, in practice) the time and energy to promote, build links to, build social accounts for, etc. That split effort, especially on the SEO side, can far outweigh the brand benefits, unless you have solid resources to invest (read that "$$$").
To be fair, I don't know your strategy/niche, but I've just found that to be true 95% of the time in these cases. Most of the time, I think building sub-brands on sub-folders within the main site and only having one of each product page is a better bet. The other advantage is that users can see the larger brand (it lends credibility) and can move between brands if one isn't a good match.
The exception would be if there's some clear legal or competitive reason the brands can't be publicly associated. In most cases, though, that's going to come with a lot of headaches.
-
Hi all, I think that your alternatives would be:
- one big site with all the thematics. In that way all users can access all content without leaving the site, no need for noindex no need for canonicals since you won't have dupe content
- three sites with specialized articles in each one. You may change slightly your design to give the user the feeling that the site is different but in the same network. Then you may interlink those sites as useful resources. Not optimal since they'll have a huge interlinking,
- as you said noindex the non canonical article. Remember that the noindex tag will prevent indexation not crawling because google will need to crawl your page to know that it should not index it. So you may add meta "noindex,nocache,follow" in the header and be sure that the juice is still flowing in your site.
-
Hmm, ok that's helpful.
The content would be identical with the possible exceptions of a very slightly different meta title and site footer.
What's my alternative to a setup like this? One site, one brand? Noindex the non-canonical article versions?
What I dislike about noindex is that it means inbound links to the non-canonical article versions bring me no benefit.
-
I believe you are playing with fire here... to me this looks like you are trying to manipulate search engines.
If you read the article About rel="canonical" on Google Webmasters Support, you will see they say rel="canonical" link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive
Also in the same article they specify that rel="canonical" should be used on pages with identical content. Are you sure in your case the pages have identical content (per total) or just identical articles?
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 we compete for both videos and text results?
Hi, We have a ecommerce website that performs very well for our brand pages on the text results including the reviews snippet. Our brand pages also include embedded videos. Until now we have always ranked poorly on video results. Our videos are hosted over youtube. In order to boost our video result we have recently submitted a video sitemap to help crawlers find out our videos. The result is the following : our brand pages are now only competing in the video results space. Instead of showing as a text result with our reviews snippet, it shows as a video in a carrousel widget. Within the video tab we are ranking top. We have experienced a drop in CTR since then. Moz have reported a drop on all our brand keywords for text search although the video widget shows our brand there. Is there a way to compete for both videos results and text results, making the choice to keey the review snippet widget? Is the video sitemap useful only to compete within the video space? Cheers
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mattam1 -
Content Strategy/Duplicate Content Issue, rel=canonical question
Hi Mozzers: We have a client who regularly pays to have high-quality content produced for their company blog. When I say 'high quality' I mean 1000 - 2000 word posts written to a technical audience by a lawyer. We recently found out that, prior to the content going on their blog, they're shipping it off to two syndication sites, both of which slap rel=canonical on them. By the time the content makes it to the blog, it has probably appeared in two other places. What are some thoughts about how 'awful' a practice this is? Of course, I'm arguing to them that the ranking of the content on their blog is bound to be suffering and that, at least, they should post to their own site first and, if at all, only post to other sites several weeks out. Does anyone have deeper thinking about this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Daaveey0 -
What other SEO strategies and tactics can be accomplished at this point?
The client specializes in home, commercial and restoration cleaning services and offers carpet, upholstery, area rug, wood floor, drapery, tile and gout, stone and restoration services such as (water damage, fire damage, mold remediation). This company has over 40 franchises. Carpet cleaning service is their core service that gets them to the customer’s door, then technicians get to up sell on the secondary services (tile, upholstery, stone, wood…) One of the main strategies we have implemented successfully is to be more visible at the local level was a local SEO strategy with every locations having their own unique landing pages for each of the services they would offer ( for instance the san diego location would a customized page for carpet, upholstery and all services they would offer). We have done a great job optimizing each of these locations. Optimization includes on page optimization, unique NAP information, local citations (manual insertions + Yext). We also added local markups and for some of the franchises we added review snippet. Link building around carpet cleaning has been conducted as well through guest posting and in links content. Most of our locations have a google business updated and optimized as well. We are working to get as many reviews as possible but it is still very challenging. In summary basic SEO tactics have been implemented following google’s guideline. Traffic & rankings got us a positive progressive boost in mid 2013(April to August) but in april 2014 the site got hit by manual penalty affecting all carpet cleaning queries only. I was able to cleanup the mess within 2 months luckily but unfortunately we still saw a drop of %40 in traffic (vs 2013) on average in all carpet cleaning pages YoY (april to august). 2015 Q1 traffic has improved by 6% compared to Q1 2014 which is good but still not at the level we were. With the pigeon update and all the high authoritative directories (yelp, angieslist) taking over more and more of the organic real estate in the SERP and increase in competition we have had a hard time getting back to where we were (2013) and we may never get back unless another algorithmic change happens. Another frustrating thing is local competition which has the worst sites as far as UX and content and still outranks us ( such as http://www.carpetcleaninglosangeles.com/). My main goal is to figure out a plan to increase traffic within the carpet cleaning pages and therefore increase conversions. Like it or not rankings for carpet cleaning queries is affecting our CC traffic, so working towards improving them is one way to go even though I shouldn’t focus all my efforts on just rankings. 2015 SEO main activities has been:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art
-local link building= somewhat successful (Seeing some rankings improvements but not consistent across all franchises)
-content marketing projects= quiet successful as far as traffic, branding and link acquisition but not seeing enough ROI
-new web design (launched late 2014)
-google business reviews
-local citations duplicate removal
-weekly blogging ( successful as far as traffic and branding) Things I would like to work on:
-improve Bounce rate within site
-improve CTR by adding review snippets across all franchises
-add industry certification logos to build trust with users and improve conversion
-add before and after pictures of services performed
-site speed (has slowed down compared to the old site) I would love get feedback on what other crucial components(that I am missing) can be done to improve most of these franchises rankings. I am a bit out of ideas as far as what else can be done. Thanks!0 -
BizaarVoice Cloud SEO: Canonical Query String
We've implemented BazaarVoice with the latest Cloud SEO. As an eComm site, BV helps us manage our own reviews along with currating reviews from vendors on product pages that don't have any. Only a maximum of 7 reviews are displayed at one time and any additional are on a "next" page. BV has asked to include a query string (?bvrrp=...) on our canonical tags that would allow SEs to read the additional reviews. For example, the current canoncial URL will go from this http://www.sitename.com/item/product-name/123456789 to http://www.sitename.com/item/product-name/123456789**?bvrrp=Main_Site/reviews/product/2/123456789.htm** Having more crawlable UGC is advantagous but I'm skeptical about adding this. Just looking for any guidance. Thanks! WMCA
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WMCA0 -
How can using guest bloggers HURT me?
Hi Mozzers, I want to start accepting guest bloggers on my site to create content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W
What potential pitfalls should I watch out for? Should they only link a certain amount of times to their site? Per article? Per everything?
Ratio of followed vs nofollowed links?
Should I not link to "hazardous" sites I don't want to associate myself with? How can I identify a site that will hurt my link profile?
What's the best way to make sure the guest bloggers aren't plagiarizing? Thanks!0 -
Canonical Tag - Question
Hey, I will give a thumbs up and best answer to whoever answers my question correctly. The Canonical Tag is supposed to solve Duplication which is fine. My questions are: Does the Canonical Tag make the PR / Link Juice flow differently? If I have john.long.com/home and john.long.com but put a Canonical Tag on john.long.com/home reading john.long.com then what does this do? Does it flow the Link Equity back to john.long.com? Can you use the Canonical Tag to change PR flow in any means? If I had john.long.com/washing-machines and john.long.com/kids-toys... If I put a Canonical Tag on john.long.com/kids-toys reading john.long.com/washing-machines then would the PR from /kids-toys flow to /washing-machines or would Google just ignore this? (The pages are completely different in this example and content is completely different). Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AdiRste0 -
Rel Canonical = WHAT
can someone please explain this "NOTICE" i am getting from my campaign...Is this a problem that needs attention?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEObleu.com0 -
Nobody Can Answer This? What Can Google Tell About Videos?
I uploaded a video to youtube one time and then went to upload it again, but saved differently with different tags. Youtube rejected the second upload as being the same as the first. Really, it was the same... just a different file with different tags. Now, I was thinking about making and uploading some similar but not identical videos for embedding on some web pages. Was thinking I'd make the voice overs different, but the images mostly the same montage. Do you think Youtube/Google will see it as the same video? I kind of assume that it didn't fly when I first tried it some time ago because youtube was looking at the audio in the way it can make a transcription. Do you think if the audi,o, file name, tags were different, it wouldn't matter if the video was the same? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010