How to make google not index quotes from other sites?
-
Hey guys,
I have a site where we post quite a lot of info from other sites. We don't want google to de-index our pages because parts of it are quotes from other sites. What would you use to make it so Google sees it's a quote from another site? Or to just make Google not index the quote?
Thanks!
-
We're using Vbulletin and we do really want the rest of page to get indexed. I'll just link back to them then. Thanks to both of you!
-
Hi Gianluca,
Yes I did - Thanks for pointing it out
-
If the quotes are just part of the content and not a big part of the content, I would not worry too much about eventual problems, always if you cite the source of the quote.
If the quote substantially means the highest % of the page content, but you want the page to be indexed, then the use of the canonical tag with the original source in it, it's not the solution, because the SE will filter out your page and show the source only. In that case I think that a link back to the source could be enough.
There could be an alternative, but it is just an idea as i don't know if it could work in your case: to use a schema (microdata) in order to better specify the source to the SE: http://schema.org/Article and http://schema.org/BlogPosting
Then, if you don't want to have the quoting pages be seen at all, then simply don't make them indexable with noindex,follow or use the canonical tag with the source url in.
-
1. Add a nofollow tag to the head of the page so that it doesn't get indexed
<meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow" />
I think you meant: Add a noindex tag..., right?
-
Hi,
I would say that you have a couple of options:-
1. Add a nofollow tag to the head of the page so that it doesn't get indexed
<meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow" />
2. Add a canonical link to the head of the page pointing back to the original content
<link href="http://www.original-site.com"rel="canonical">
I would try to go for the 2nd option if possible but it can be difficult to implement if you are using a CMS system. Also make sure that you don't have more quoted content on your site than you have original content.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
Does this index well
hi i have been looking at this template but as the content will be generated from their database will it index well - am i better to build a static equivalent using something like visual composer as i am not that technical: http://realhomes.inspirythemes.biz/listing/
On-Page Optimization | | neilhenderson0 -
Sitemap include all site links or just ones we want indexed?
Got a quick sitemap question. We have a clients site built in opencart and are getting ready to submit the sitmap. The default sitemap setting generates urls right off of the root. For example site.com/product. These urls are also accessible through the site itself. We prefer to give the site some depth and have structured the products so the urls are site.com/category/product. All of the product pages have canonicals including the category so we should not have to worry about duplicate content on the /product page vs the /category/product page. My question is both types of product pages are included in the sitemap at the moment. Since we don't want google to index the /product urls should we leave them off of the sitemap even though they are readily accessible from the frontend(though not linked)? Or just leave them and let the canonical tag be used in directing google as to which urls to index. Thanks in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | Whebb0 -
Rel="canonical" link should they be to or from an "SEO friendly" url
Thanks for taking the time to review this. So for our example, lets use the following SEO friendly link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry-and-biblical-studies/BA-biblical-studies We'll call this link the SEO VERSION The title of the college is" Pacific Christian College of Minstry and Biblical Studies" The title of the program is "BA Biblical Studies" The QUERY version of the link to this page would be something like: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/index.php?collegeid=22&programid=34 Keep in mind that the meta title, description, and keyword tags for the page are all administerable The SEO VERSION is automatically created from the title of the college, and the title of the program. Each one of these titles can be overidden with a URL slug individually. For instance, the admin could make the link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry/biblical-studies by changing the slug for the college to "pacific-christian-college-of-ministry" and the slug for the program to "biblical-studies". Let's call this version the SLUG VERSION So now we have multiple ways to get to the same content. The question on the table is what is best practice for the rel="canonical" link to keep from getting dinged for duplicate content. Let's say that our SEO VERSION is the canonical link for 1 year. Then the choice was made to optimize the links thru the slugs creating the SLUG VERSION. My assumption is that we would keep the SEO VERSION as the canonical link. But then let's say 6 months later that the title of the program is changed in the admin. Now the SEO VERSION has changed and so has the canonical link. Do we lose the link juice garnered over the last 18 months? It would seem to me, that if we use the QUERY version as the canonical link, then any optimizations or changes affect everything except the canonical link, thus keeping the previous link juice earned. But is having an ugly URL as the canonical link detrimental to SEO? Please advise.
On-Page Optimization | | robertdonnell0 -
Redirecting pages (old site to new site)
I have a question- there is one location, one set of pages for both the old and new site on the same host environment so when I did the redirect it get into a loop trying to redirect from itself to itself Not sure how its gonna affect SEO. Will pages get hit for duplicate content?
On-Page Optimization | | Yanez0 -
How Pandas Define "Thin" content
Many websites like www.geico.com have little content on the homepage, but instead a ton of graphics. I've been told before to watch out for pages/posts less than 200 words, but 95% of websites have "main pages" that are graphically driven and have very very few words. So, if Panda is cracking down on thin content, how does Panda define "thin" with regards to major pages of a site? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | terran0 -
Linking within Secondary Site
So we've got a secondary site that has quite a bit of authority & links that used to have all types of info on parasailing. All those pages are gone and homepage is now a salespage (management decision, not mine) Our main site sells a wide range of tours and activities and does have a page for parasailing. The secondary site uses the same template/navigation as our main site (again, not my decision). Do you think that's an effective way to send link juice to our main site? The secondary site has some pretty awesome high authority sites linking to it. I've considered 301'ing the whole site to our main site but it's got a really solid domain name and I'd like to take up 2 SERP listings (main and secondary site) Is there a better way to have double listings but still send a good amount of link juice?
On-Page Optimization | | SoulSurfer80 -
Why isn't Google indexing me?
Recently got handed off a .org site for a quasi state agency here in Michigan. Turns out the developer had the site live for the past six months but left the noindex, nofollow tag on everything so the site was invisible to search engines. Obviously we wiped all of those things a couple weeks ago when we got started, added all of our sitemaps to bing/yahoo/google webmaster tools and we've already started getting indexed by yahoo and bing and showing up for branded terms...but NOTHING from Google. WMT says our pages are all indexed, but we aren't showing up for anything in search and we don't seem to be indexed at all. Granted, if this site was brand new and didn't have any links I could see us taking a little time to get found, but this site has very good .gov and .edu links, plus we've built some other solid links to it since we've launched and Google continues to ignore it. I haven't seen this before, but could Google still be ignoring us from the months of noindex, nofollowing? If so, any tips on how to get back in teh Google's good graces here?
On-Page Optimization | | NetvantageMarketing0 -
Rel="canonical"
Can you tell me if we've implemented rel="canonical" properly? We want this to be our primary: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- while this would be duplicate and refer robots back to the URL above: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6054284 We've added the following to both pages: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- "/> Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | jonesatl0