Link + noindex vs canonical--which is better?
-
In this article http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66359 google mentions if you syndicate content, you should include a link and, ideally noindex, the content, if possible.
I'm wondering why google doesn't mention including a canonical instead the link + noindex?
Is one better than the other?
Any ideas?
-
Can I ask a question that leads on from this - how attractive a proposition is syndicated content it to publishers if you ask them to add a noindex / cross-domain canonical as well as a link from your article? Surely they want a chance to rank, expecially if they are planning on adding their own take and UGC, to differentiate it where possible, as Rand advises here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-leveraging-syndicated-content-effectively
Personally, content syndication is not something I would ever recommend for a client due to the complications from dupe content outweighing the benefits from links that could be earned...it just makes more work when that time could be spent on high quality guest blogging (in my view).
However, a new client is really interested in doing it. But if we offer content for those terms (link + noindex / cross domain canonical) - will there be any interest to use the syndicated articles at all?!
Maybe it would be better to offer the content in return for a link and a guarantee that they will either add unique content to it or canonicalize / noindex?
-
Hay - thanks for those links. I do remember reading those Webmaster Central posts a while back, but hadn't used that technique in practice ever. I think either of the techniques requires good cooperation from your syndication partners to implement. I think in practice, it may not always be easy to have a syndication partner add meta tags specifically for a page of content they are publishing.
In terms of which one is better - I really can't say. I would guess that a nonindex plus a link would probably be more explicit, since in that case, the search engines don't really have to decide which is the real canonical version - since there's only one page of content existing.
Also, the way they describe cross domain canonical sounds kind of wishy-washy ---> "While the rel="canonical" link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive, we do try to follow it where possible."
-
In fact in this post http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/handling-legitimate-cross-domain.html, they mention using a canonical when syndicating content, if the content is similar enough--not sure why they don't mention a canonical in the webmaster guidelines link I included above.
-
Hi, Cross domain canonicalization is a common practice as well (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/10/raising-awareness-of-cross-domain-url.html).
-
If your syndication partners are reliable, the noindex option would be the best choice. This will however not guarantee you that your content will rank above the content of the syndication partner.
I would be reluctant (personal preference) to place a canonical link on the syndicated site pointing back to your domain. My biggest concern would be possible reputation issues with the syndication site hurting you.
Although I can not verify it for sure yet, it does seem that when you embed authorship information in your and the syndicated content, Google seems to favour content from the original source.
I guess the question is really why you want to have your content syndicated? If it is an attempt to build out links, I think a better option would be to provide a snippet to the syndication site, linking to your full content.
-
It seems like two different issues to me. If your content is syndicated on a 3rd party site, Google is saying - ask your partners to no-index the content and provide a link back to your original source. That way your original source will rise above all of those syndicated sources (on many other places around the WWW) to be the highest ranked page
If you are optimizing your own site, they are saying be careful to avoid duplicate versions of the same page within your own site, coming about as a result of canonicalization problems. Canonicalization problems on your site make it appear you have lots of very similar versions of the same page on your own site.
I think I can see how you got confused here - since they are talking about the topic of duplicate content in general - which can be caused either by syndication (publishing one page of content across many different sites) or canonicalization issues (where the same page of content on your own site appears on several different URLs).
Hope that helps!
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
-
Pages canonicaled to another appearing before the canonical on google searches
Hello, When I do this google search, this page(amandine roses category) appears before the one it is canonical-ed to(this multi-product version of amandine roses). This happens often with this multi-product template, where they don't rank as well as their category version(that are canonical to the multi-product version). Can someone maybe point us in the right direction on what the issue may be? What can be improved?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | globalrose.com0 -
Anchor Text vs. Button Links
Hi How important are anchor text links within your own site vs. buttons for SEO? We've redesigned some of our pages from anchor text links to buttons which are just clickable images.I know historically this isn't the best way, but is it still as important as it used to be?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Breadcrumbs or contextual links ?
Hi, I have breadcrumbs on my site but wondering if in addition to those I should also add contextual links linking to the same pages ? Or is it necessary to duplicate ? The reason i would be doing this is because contextual links/ editorial is what google likes and I am not sure breadcrumbs counts as much. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Pagination & Canonicals
Hi I've been looking at how we paginate our product pages & have a quick question on canonicals. Is this the right way to display.. Or should the canonical point to the main page http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/euro-containers-stacking-containers, so Google doesn't pick up duplicate meta information? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Affiliate links vs. seo (updated 19.02.2014)
UPDATE - 19.02.2014: Hi, We got another negative answer from Google pointing again to our affiliate links, so the 301 redirect and block was not enough.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Silviu
I understand the need of contacting all of them and ask for the nofollow, we've started the process, but it will take time, alot of time. So I'd like to bring to your attention another 2 scenarious I have in mind: 1. Disavow all the affiliate links.
Is it possible to add big amount of domains (>1000) to the disavow doc.? Anyone tryed this? 2. Serve 404 status for urls coming from affiliates that did not add noffolow attribute.
This way we kinda tell G that content is no longer available, but we will end up with few thousand 404 error pages.
The only way to fix all those errors is by 301 redirecting them afterwards (but this way the link juice might 'restart' flowing and the problem might persist). Any input is welcomed. Thanks Hi Mozers, After a reconsideration request regarding our link profile, we got a 'warning' answer about some of our affiliate sites (links coming from our affiliate sites that violate Google's quality guidelines). What we did (and was the best solution in trying to fix the 'seo mistake' and not to turn off the affiliate channel) was to 301 redirect all those links to a /AFFN/ folder and block this folder from indexing.
We're still waiting for an answer on our last recon. request. I want to know you opinion about this? Is this a good way to deal with this type of links if they're reported? Changing the affiliate engine and all links on the affiliate sites would be a big time and technical effort, that's why I want to make sure it's truly needed. Best,
Silviu0 -
Does Google crawl and spider for other links in rel=canonical pages?
When you add rel=canonical to the page, will Google still crawl your page for content and discover new links in that page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ReferralCandy0 -
Links on My website
I am looking to create some more trust on my website by subscribing to BBB. I have heard that my site is penalized and loses "link juice" if I place the BBB logo link in my page footer on every page of my website. Does anyone know how much I am penalized? Should I only put it on my conversion pages and maybe my main 10 sub pages? My main goal is to assist in getting conversions but I don't want to do it at the expense of getting a penalty. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Boo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Boodreaux0 -
SubDomain vs. SubFolder
I know this subject has been discussed many, many times before. But it is now 2013, and Google continues to tweak and change their algo to build upon the best delivered results for users. So the questions are: Does Google still treat subdomains as a completely separate and unique domain from the root? If so, is it a good SEO strategy to split up, when it fits, a website into subdomains with links pointing back to the root or main domain? As a company we have several subdomains with some of our categories. For example our main site is www.iboats.com. This site has all our boat products. But we set up subdomains several years ago for the following: boatcovers.iboats.com boatpropellers.iboats.com biminitops.iboats.com And we have our fourms as a subdomain: forums.iboats.com Splitting them out were originally done for SEO reasons, but now is more for better managing our main categories. It appears that Google is treating our subdomains as part of our main root domain anyway, so I don't see the SEO value anymore. If we were to move the subdomains into subfolders of the root, I'm wondering if we might see a boost in SEO value having more pages within the main website? I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts on this subject.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tdawson090