Should I allow a publisher to word-for-word re-publish our article?
-
A small blog owner has asked if they can word-for-word republish one of our blog articles on their own blog. I'm not sure how to respond.
We're don't do any outreach to submit or duplicate our articles throughout the web... so this isn't something being done in mass. And this could be a great signal to Google that somebody else is vouching for the quality of our article, right?
However, I'm a bit concerned about word-for-word duplicating. Normally, if somebody is interested in re-publishing, both the re-publisher and our website would get more value out of it if they re-publisher added some form of commentary or extra value to our post when citing it, right?
This small blog just started releasing a segment in which they've titled "guest blog Thursday". And given the recent concerns with guest blogging (even though I'm not sure this is the classical sense of guest blogging), I'm even more concerned.
Any ideas on how I should respond?
-
I'll just leave this here.
https://twitter.com/SEOmessiah/status/425417000186150913
What is the value to you? Exposure? Traffic? Links?
Duplicate content has little value in the eyes of Google.
And this:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/demystifying-duplicate-content-penalty.html
-
Hi David,
I understand your concerns about guest blogging, however, I think you can share your article with other sites, i.e. "syndication," if you just take care of some details. First and foremost, make sure it's a site that's relevant to you or your potential audience. It sounds like it is, so you're probably good to go there. Second, make sure you have a canonical tag in place on your original content. This may or may not matter in terms of how Google attributes the content if the site you post to is a higher authority site than yours, but that's okay because what you're after is the audience and traffic, not the link or link equity. Lastly, to assuage your concerns about any potential penalty from being associated with something that says "guest blog" on it, ask that you get attribution, but that any links back to your site are given the rel="nofollow" attribute. This is something really out of your control, but you can at least attempt to cover that base.
Above all, no matter what, make sure you get full attribution and that you or whomever wrote it is listed as the author.
We have syndicated many of our articles to blogs and online magazines who appeal to our audience. Sometimes the content gets attributed to the blog even if it appeared on our site first if the blog is a high-authority site. Sometimes we even end up getting followed links back simply because the blog editor doesn't know how to do "nofollow." Like you, we don't do it all over the place, but instead are very selective and only offer specific pieces to specific places. If you think about it, a huge amount of news content online is syndicated. Syndication has always been an accepted way of sharing content. As long as it's done for the purposes of providing interesting information to a particular audience instead of for the sake of a link, I think you're perfectly fine doing so.
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
-
Content Publishing Volume/Timing
I am working with a company that has a bi-monthly print magazine that has several years' worth of back issues. We're working on building a digital platform, and the majority of articles from the print mag - tips, how-tos, reviews, recipes, interviews, etc - will be published online. Much of the content is not date-sensitive except for the occasional news article. Some content is semi-date-sensitive, such as articles focusing on seasonality (e.g. winter activities vs. summer activities). My concern is whether, once we prepare to go live, we should ensure that ALL historical content is published at once, and if so, whether back-dates should be applied to each content piece (even if dating isn't relevant), or whether we should have a strategy in place in terms of creating a publishing schedule and releasing content over time - albeit content that is older but isn't necessarily time-sensitive (e.g. a drink recipe). Going forward, all newly-created content will be published around the print issue release. Are there pitfalls I should avoid in terms of pushing out so much back content at once?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewkissel0 -
Wildcarding Robots.txt for Particular Word in URL
Hey All, So I know that this isn't a standard robots.txt, I'm aware of how to block or wildcard certain folders but I'm wondering whether it's possible to block all URL's with a certain word in it? We have a client that was hacked a year ago and now they want us to help remove some of the pages that were being autogenerated with the word "viagra" in it. I saw this article and tried implementing it https://builtvisible.com/wildcards-in-robots-txt/ and it seems that I've been able to remove some of the URL's (although I can't confirm yet until I do a full pull of the SERPs on the domain). However, when I test certain URL's inside of WMT it still says that they are allowed which makes me think that it's not working fully or working at all. In this case these are the lines I've added to the robots.txt Disallow: /*&viagra Disallow: /*&Viagra I know I have the solution of individually requesting URL's to be removed from the index but I want to see if anybody has every had success with wildcarding URL's with a certain word in their robots.txt? The individual URL route could be very tedious. Thanks! Jon
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EvansHunt0 -
If linking to contextual sites is beneficial for SE rankings, what impact does the re=“nofollow” attribute have when applied to these outbound contextual links?
Communities, opinion-formers, even Google representatives, seem to offer a consensus that linking to quality, relevant sites is good practice and therefore beneficial for SEO. Does this still apply when the outbound links are "nofollow"? Is there any good research on this out there?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danielpressley0 -
Publishing Articles + Plagiarism
Everybody at some point will write a feature rich article and publish it on their website.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mark_Ch
What is stopping your competitors from blatantly stealing your article and publishing it on their own website virtually word for word.
If your competitors website gets indexed by Google before yours than surely Google will see your hard work and cost as duplicate content. Question:
Should site owners be worried about this type of practice?
How do we safeguard ourselves from this type of practice? Any other good advice would be appreciated... Thanks Mark1 -
Directory VS Article Directory
Which got hit harder in penguin update. I was looking at SEER Interactive backlink profile (the SEO company that didn't rank for it's main keyword phrases) and noticed a pretty big trend on why it might not rank for its domain name. SEER was in a majority of anchor text, many coming from directories. i'm guessing THEY were effected because they matched the exact match domain link profile rule I'm not an expert programmer, but if i was playing "Google Programmer" I would think the Algo update went something like. If ((exact match domain) & (certain % anchor text==domain) & (certain % of anchor text== partial domain + services/company)) { tank the rankings } So back to the question, do you think that this update had a lot to do with directories, article directories, or neither. Is article directories still a legit way to get links. (not ezine)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | imageworks-2612900 -
How many words in the same page creates keyword stuffing?
In the on page report indicates that the maximum is 15. What are the best? It includes keywords on title, description and images names?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Naghirniac0 -
Articles.asp in CMS Any SEO Detriment?
Our ecommerce sites are on CMS platforms. When we generate articles we get the following: www.example.com/Articles.asp?ID=134 in the url. There is no page name (keyword) in the url as opposed to product and category pages which generate them. Does the absence of keywords in the url significantly impact the page rank of an article? If it does, I'm going to submit a feature request. If not, I'm going to leave it alone. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AWCthreads0 -
When using ALT tags - are spaces, hyphens or underscores preferred by Google when using multiple words?
when plugging ALT tags into images, does Google prefer spaces, hyphens, or underscores? I know with filenames, hyphens or underscores are preferred and spaces are replaced with %20. Thoughts? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrooklynCruiser3