As a wholesale website can our independent retailer's website use (copy) our content?
-
As a wholesaler of villa rentals, we have descriptions, images, prices etc can our agents (independent retailers) use the content from our website for their site or will this penalize us or them in Google rankings?
-
Thanks, this is what I would say under normal circumstances but when these websites require a feed to tell them exactly when a villa is booked or not, so as you don't get double bookings don't you think Google may consider this slightly different?
-
Thanks Adam for your reply,
just to give you a bit more info. We have set up an external XML feed with completely different copy to our website, but all the agents websites are having problems with this. Also it's worth noting that the copy on the XML feed is the same and given to around 15 agents websites in identical form. However these websites are not currently being penalized and often rank higher than us. I believe Google views this websites slightly differently, an example of one would be http://www.homeaway.com. If those only websites to be affected are the agents/retailers then this should already be the case as they all have the same copy on their sites. So if it's not going to harm our website I would be inclined to give them the feed straight from website, which would make our lives easier.
-
It is never a good idea for anyone to copy another site's content. Regardless of the connection between companies, I would always advise on creating unique content for both sites. As you are the original creator of the content, you shouldn't face any penalty but the independent retailer could face duplicate content issues, if they copy the content from your site.
I would certainly advise against the independent retailer copying your content. However, it would probably be more beneficial and suitable to have the retailer link to your site instead.
Hope this helps.
-
As long as google credits your site as the original author of the content ie google crawls your site before it crawls the site that copied the content. So yes it will penalize them.
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
-
Content in Accordion doesn't rank as well as Content in Text box?
Does content rank better in a full view text layout, rather than in a clickable accordion? I read somewhere because users need to click into an accordion it may not rank as well, as it may be considered hidden on the page - is this true? accordion example: see features: https://www.workday.com/en-us/applications/student.html
Technical SEO | | DigitalCRO1 -
Mobile website content optimisation
Hi there, someone I know is going to put their site to a mobile version with a mobile sub domain (m.). I have recommended responsive but for now this is their only way forward to cope with the 21st April update by Google. My question is what is the best practice for content, as its a different url will there need to be a canonical tag in to stop duplication and thus being penalised from the Google panda update? Any advice much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | tdigital0 -
Why are these URL's suddenly appearing in WMT?
One of our clients has suddenly experienced a sudden increase in crawl errors for smart phones overnight for pages which no longer exist and there are no links to these pages according to Google. There is no evidence as to why Google would suddenly start to crawl these pages as they have not existed for over 5 years, but it does come after a new site design has been put live. Pages do not appear to be in the index when a site search is used. There was a similar increase in crawl errors on desktop initially after the new site went live, but these quickly returned to normal. Mobile crawl errors only became apparent after this. There are some URL's showing which have no linking page detected so we don't know where these URL's are being found. WMT states "Googlebot couldn't crawl this URL because it points to a non-existent page". Those that do have a linking page are showing an internal page which also doesn't exist so it can't possibly link to any page. Any insight is appreciated. Andy and Mark at Click Consult.
Technical SEO | | ClickConsult0 -
What will happen if all our website content has the date created amended to the migration date?
HI, We will be migrating all our website content soon to a new CMS and at the moment the
Technical SEO | | alzheimerssoc1 -
When do you use 'Fetch as a Google'' on Google Webmaster?
Hi, I was wondering when and how often do you use 'Fetch as a Google'' on Google Webmaster and do you submit individual pages or main URL only? I've googled it but i got confused more. I appreciate if you could help. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Rubix1 -
Possible penguin hit but then back, now what's next?
hiz, i did a little check on my site by answering the quiz at mytrafficdropped.com and there was a question about on what dates there was drop in organic. and i did checked my analytics on a top sending keyword. here is what i found. see attached image . Traffic dropped totally on April 20 to onwards. Then got back better in june, but again dropped in October, still down.. anythoughts guys ? 1Jk47.png
Technical SEO | | wickedsunny10 -
404 error - but I can't find any broken links on the referrer pages
Hi, My crawl has diagnosed a client's site with eight 404 errors. In my CSV download of the crawl, I have checked the source code of the 'referrer' pages, but can't find where the link to the 404 error page is. Could there be another reason for getting 404 errors? Thanks for your help. Katharine.
Technical SEO | | PooleyK0 -
Does a CMS inhibit a site's crawlability?
I smell baloney but I could use a little backup from the community! My client was recently told by an SEO that search engines have a hard time getting to their site because using a CMS (like WordPress) doesn't allow "direct access to the html". Here is what they emailed my client: "Word Press (like your site is built with) and other similar “do it yourself” web builder programs and websites are not good for search engine optimization since they do not allow direct access to the HTML. Direct HTML access is needed to input important items to enhance your websites search engine visibility, performance and creditability in order to gain higher search engine rankings." Bots are blind to CMSs and html is html, correct? What do you think about the information given by the other SEO?
Technical SEO | | Adpearance0