What's the best way to manage content that is shared on two sites and keep both sites in search results?
-
I manage two sites that share some content. Currently we do not use a cross-domain canonical URL and allow both sites to be fully indexed. For business reasons, we want both sites to appear in results and need both to accumulate PR and other SEO/Social metrics. How can I manage the threat of duplicate content and still make sure business needs are met?
-
Does a duplicate content penalty impact specific pages or entire sites? If I wanted to test using the cross-domain canonical on a certain section of my site, would the impact be visible? Or would I need to put cross-domain canonicals on everything appearing on both sites in order to see the results?
-
Changing the articles or even page titles is not an option.
That's too bad. What Irving suggested has the potential for HUGE wins.
I'd find a way if that was my site.
-
Sure, that is a solution, but then rankings for the additional dupe sites went away because you basically suggested to Google "this URL on this site should not rank, because it is a copy of this article on this site, so give that site credit not me"
I believe that Jon has not been hit yet and wants both sites to rank, but is unable to change the content on either site to be unique. Any additional code you can insert in between the articles to create less similarity between both pages should help lessen the chance of getting hit but not a guarantee.
-
Irving, I had a client who had been hit with a manual penalty for Doorway Pages. They weren't Doorway Pages, they were just pages on various domains (that he owned) with a lot of duplicate content on them. We got him reinstated when we implemented cross-domain canonicals and filed a re-inclusion request. Sounds similar to this case?
Just wondering if anyone had heard of sites being hit like that for dupe content?
-
LOL true.
With all due respect, 301, noindex or cross-canonicalizing is as much of a solution as saying delete your second site. My suggestion of breaking up the content or appending additional content will possibly help you avoid a dupe content filter being triggered.
Duplicate content is not a penalty, it's a filter so the worst that happens is the main site that was bringing you the majority of traffic gets filtered and loses rankings to the secondary site.
I think a good question to ask at this point would be for you to clarify your first sentence: "I manage two sites that share some content" can you define what "some" means? are they main conversion pages or secondary blog posts, and what percentage of the site is dupe content?
BTW, hope you're not interlinking your two sites keep them as separate as possible.
-
Try this post for more info:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/handling-legitimate-cross-domain.html
-
Sounds like you don't need to manage the threat of duplicate content; you are producing the duplicate content yourself. You are instead wanting to minimize the effect duplicate content has from one site to the next. The only way I know of to get eliminate the risk of duplicate content penalties is to noindex, 301 redirect, or provide canonical URLs.
Since you want both sites to continue being indexed, you can either keep doing what you're doing (and hope you don't get hit) or use canonical URLs and pick which site is best for each page.
Hope this helps.
-
If I used the cross-domain canonical, would that mean that one site would stop appearing in search results?
-
You can append additional content to the bottom of the page on the more important site, or break up the article by adding content and or ads between the paragraphs (which will probably result in article fragmentation) but if you're not a news source it's not a big deal.
-
I'm no technical expert but it sounds like you're playing with fire. I've seen more than one site penalised for exactly this. If it looks like you're trying to rank the same piece of content twice, at least one of the URLs is at risk of filtering or a penalty. Isn't this exactly what the cross-domain canonical was created for?
-
Changing the articles or even page titles is not an option.
-
Paraphrase the articles on the highest traffic pages to your secondary site and/or tweak the keyword targets
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
-
Migrating From Parameter-Driven URL's to 'SEO Friendly URL's (Slugs)
Hi all, hope you're all good and having a wonderful Friday morning. At the moment we have over 20,000+ live products on our ecomms site, however, all of the products are using non-seo friendly URL's (/product?p=1738 etc) and we're looking at deploying SEO friendly url's such as (/product/this-is-product-one) etc. As you could imagine, making such a change on a big ecomms site will be a difficult task and we will have to take on A LOT of content changes, href-lang changes, affiliate link tests and a big 301 task. I'm trying to get some analysis together to pitch the Tech guys, but it's difficult, I do understand that this change has it's benefits for SEO, usability and CTR - but I need some more info. Keywords in the slugs - what is it's actual SEO weight? Has anyone here recently converted from using parameter based URL's to keyword-based slugs and seen results? Also, what are the best ways of deploying this? Add a canonical and 301? All comments greatly appreciated! Brett
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Brett-S0 -
Does Google Read URL's if they include a # tag? Re: SEO Value of Clean Url's
An ECWID rep stated in regards to an inquiry about how the ECWID url's are not customizable, that "an important thing is that it doesn't matter what these URLs look like, because search engines don't read anything after that # in URLs. " Example http://www.runningboards4less.com/general-motors#!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 Basically all of this: #!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 That is a snippet out of a conversation where ECWID said that dirty urls don't matter beyond a hashtag... Is that true? I haven't found any rule that Google or other search engines (Google is really the most important) don't index, read, or place value on the part of the url after a # tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
Site was moved, but still exists on the old server and is being outranked for it's own name
Recently, a client went through a split with a business partner, they both had websites on the same domain, but within their own sub directories. There is a main landing page, which links to both sites, the landing page sits on the root. Ie. example.com is a landing page with links to example.com/partner1, and example.com/partner2 Parter 2 will be my client for this example. After the split, partner 2 downloaded his website, and put it up on his own server, but no longer has any kind of access to the old servers ftp, and partner 1 is refusing to cooperate in any way to have the site removed from the old server. They did add a 301 redirect for the home page on the old server for partner 2, so, example.com/partner2/index.html is 301'ing to the new site on the new server, HOWEVER, every other page is still live on that old server, and is outranking the new site in every instance. The home page is also being outranked, even with the 301 redirect in place. What are some steps I can take to rectify this? The clients main concern is that this old website, containing the old partners name, is outranking him for his own name, and the name of his practice. So far, here's what i've been thinking: Since the site has poor on-page optimization, i'll start be cleaning all of that up. I'll then optimize the home page to better depict the clients name and practice through proper usage of heading tags, titles, alt, etc, as well as the meta title and description. The only other thing I can think of would be to start building some backlinks? Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RCDesign740 -
'Nofollow' footer links from another site, are they 'bad' links?
Hi everyone,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | romanbond
one of my sites has about 1000 'nofollow' links from the footer of another of my sites. Are these in any way hurtful? Any help appreciated..0 -
Best way to SEO crowdsourcing site
What is the best way to SEO a crowdsourcing site? The websites content is entirely propagated by the user
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StreetwiseReports0 -
Our site has been penalized and it's proving to be very hard to get our rankings back...
So I have a question. We have used nearly every trick in the book to rank our site, including a ton of white hat stuff.... but then also a lot of black hat practices that resulted in us dropping in the rankings by about 30-40 positions. And getting back to where we were (top 10 for most keywords) is proving to be nearly impossible. We have a ton of great content coming off of the site and we actually offer a quality product. We follow most of the guidelines advocated here on SEOmoz. But the black hat stuff we did has really taken a toll. And it's gonna be pretty much impossible to go back in time and erase all of the Black Hat stuff we did. So what should we do? Should we design a completely new website with a new domain? What can be done to help?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LilyRay0 -
Image and Content Management
My boss has decided that on our new website we are building, that he wants all content and images managed by not allowing copying content and/or saving images. Some of the information and images is proprietary, yet most is available for public viewing, but never the less, he wants it prohibited from copy and/or saving. We would still want to keep the content indexable and use appropriate alt tags etc... I wanted to find out if there is any SEO reason and facts to why this would not be a good idea?Would implementing code to prohibit (or at least make it difficult) to save images and copy content, penalize us?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KJ-Rodgers0 -
Best way to preserve site authority / juice when moving a property to Facebook?
Hi, so, I have a website. Let's call it a cooking website with about 300 pieces of content cross-listed among 20 categories. I want to move my entire site, hook line and sinker, to Facebook. My first thought was to do this with a domain-wide 301, as that would preserve most of the authority and juice my site has built over the years... but would this have a corollary effect of unfocusing my keyword strategy? E.g. is there a risk in doing a sitewide 301 to a single landing page, in that some of the juice I'd be passing to my new home page would be from, say, "recipes for jelly donuts?" Has anyone had an experience making a large product transition like this, and are there any current best practices? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kenn_Gold1