Can I use content from an existing site that is not up anymore?
-
I want to take down a current website and create a new site or two (with new url, ip, server). Can I use the content from the deleted site on the new sites since I own it? How will Google see that?
-
Thank you. That is a great answer!
-
Hi there,
I would say that, taking William's point into account, canonicals might work in order to remove any possibility that Google would see the new site as copying the old one. That said, I can't guarantee that they could not either manually or automatically (manually would be much easier) note that the two sites are owned by the same person and that the domain change is a measure taken to avoid a penalty. The truly safest thing to do is to re-write the content and start afresh. The next safest is to remove the content from the old site, force a re-crawl / wait for Google to update its cache of the old site excluding the content, and then re-publish on the new site.
Canonicals will make this process quicker, but I don't believe it can be guaranteed that they won't result in Google making a stronger connection between the two sites, which might not go well. Again, this is only if there are enough similarities for Google to understand that this is not a scraper / scrapee situation but a situation where one entity owns both sites.
I'm sorry not to give a definitive answer.
-
After reading Jane & William's discussion--do you both agree that canonicals is the way to go? The site will be similar (trying to create a non-penalized site). The sites will have different ip's and servers but a lot of the same content. None of the same backlinks... I just don't want to do the work if it's going to end up hurting me worse. I don't see how I can get all those bad backlinks removed.
-
Really good point. Taking that into account, I might guess that an anti-manipulation method Google might employ is to grab registration details, hosting data, analytics codes, etc. and other identifying factors to determine whether the canonicalised content is owned by the same person. That is, canonicals between tightly-linked sites where the "duplicate" is penalised could hurt the canonical source, stopping people using this in place of the old 301 trick. If the scraper site has nothing in common with the source, Google does not pass on any negative metric from the duplicate.
This is just a theory too of course! I'd be confident assuming that they're taking precautions to stop this becoming a common trick. Awesome point!
-
The thought behind canonicals is this:
-
One of their uses is to fight against scrapers and such by still having the canonical tags in place when these spammy places grab your content.
-
If penalties passed through canonicals, then the penalties these scrapers have would effect your site terribly. This is not the case, in my experience.
-
So, unless Google has already implemented the human tracking that was discussed a few Whiteboard Fridays ago, this should work. And even with hardcore human tracking for penalities, I think its yet to be seen if this would focus on small sites trying to fix penalities as opposed to the large black hat spammers.
There is a bit of theorycrafting here, but in RoxBrock's specific situation, it looks like he has to pick the lesser of all evils.
-
-
The idea of using canonicals interests me, but I am not 100% sure it is risk-free. It used to be the case that you could 301 penalised websites and remove the penalty (we're talking 2010 and earlier here). Google is very keen on transferring penalties these days, so I would be surprised if they are leaving a loophole for canonical tags open like this, or if they will keep that loophole open for long.
You would ideally leave the site live and remove its content as William says - once you see that the cached version of the site no longer contains the content you want to move, you can feel free to take the old site down and put the content up on the new site.
We don't know what lengths Google is going to or will go to to avoid people being able to re-use previously penalised content (including good content from penalised websites) but the safest thing you can do whilst using this old content right now is ensure the old content has been deindexed before putting it up again elsewhere.
The actual safest thing you can do is re-write the content, but I realise this might not be possible.
-
Put the canonical tags in the old content, and point it to the new pages.
If you believe there are penalties, then 301ing is a little risky.
De-indexing content doesn't mean Google forgets it was there, they still have it cached, so this isn't ideal.
It looks like canonical may be your best bet.
-
So you suggest leaving the old site up and add the content to the new site with the canonical tag pointing to old site? Any other options you can think of?
-
You would need to keep the site live to speed up the de-indexation. Then block all bots through robots.txt and force a crawl.
Make sure this is what you want to do. There are other options for this situation depending on your intent. Canonical tags, for example, would not transfer penalties and still show Google where the good source of the content is.
-
Many bad links were built on the old website by a questionable SEO firm, so I do believe the URL has been hit, but not with a formal penalty.
In order to redirect the old web pages I would need to keep the website live which really does not serve my purpose--which is to use great content that was written in-house on a clean website with no backlinks (starting from scratch).
How would one go about "de-indexing" content?
Thank you for prompt responses.
-
301 redirect the old web pages to the new ones using an .htaccess file on the old website. This will show Google that the content has moved to the new web pages. Check out the link for more information: http://moz.com/learn/seo/redirection
-
Interesting question!
I had to do some research on this, there is not much out there. One place I was sure to find and answer was the depths of the underworld in blackhat forums. I found a whole discussion on it from 6 months back. (Not going to link to a black hat site, sorry)
However what they said and had tried and tested was that the site must be de-indexed and the same for all pages so that it did not trip the duplicate content.
However lets back things up a little. Why are you doing this? Does the original have a penalty?
Why not keep the original live and put a canonical link in your page pointing to the new site stating that is the original content owner? this way you will get traffic right away and not have to start ranking from scratch.
Need to know more about your reasons please.
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
-
Using PURL.org/GoodRelations for Schema Markup
Hello awesome MOZ community! Our agency uses JSON-LD for our local business schema markup. We validate our markup using Google's Structured Data Testing Tool. All good! Recently, I discovered a competing agency using our similar JSON-LD markup (that's ok) and "http://purl.org/goodrelations" markup. The latter appears to be–potentially–black hat SEO. Why? According to MOZ, "there is no conclusive evidence that this markup improves rankings." BUT, the purl.org markup has provided an opportunity for "keyword stuffing". Using purl.org markup, the agency has stuffed/used 66 of the same keywords into the validated markup. I would love to get feedback from the MOZ community. Can schema markup–of any kind–be used to "keyword stuff"? If so, why aren't sites getting penalized for this? Is this practice flying under the elusive algorithm radars? Thanks! Your feedback, insight, and snarky remarks are welcome 🙂 Cheers!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SproutDigital0 -
Can I get updated opinions on PR Web?
I saw Moz has discussed PR web in earlier posts, but they are mostly months to years old. I'm wondering if PR Web is a good service? A lot of my competitors use it, but it seems just like a paid link to me. If for whatever reason, PR Web is an approved loophole, does anyone have any suggestions on which plan to purchase? Thanks, Ruben
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Failed microsites that negatively affect main site: should I just redirect them all?
While they are great domain names, I suspect my 7 microsites are considered spammy and resulted in a filter on my main e-commerce site for the important keywords we now have a filter blocking from showing up in search. Should I consider it a sunk cost and redirect them all to my main e-commerce site, or is there any reason why that would make things worse? I've fixed just about everything I can thinking of in response to Panda and Penguin, before which we were on the first page for everything. That includes adding hundreds of pages of unique and relevant content, in the form of buyers guides and on e-commerce category pages -- resolving issues of thin content. Then I hid URL parameters in Ajax, sped up the site significantly, started generating new links... nothing... I have tons of new keywords for other categories, but I still clearly have that filter on those few important head keywords. The anchor text on the microsites leading to the main site are typically not exact match, so I don't think that's the issue. It has to be that the sites themselves are considered spammy. My bosses are not going to like the idea because they paid for those awesome domains, but would the best idea be to redirect them to the e-commerce site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ElBo9130 -
New Site Structure
Greetings SEOmoz Team and Users, I need some advise, our site has more products to offer so I am try to optimize the index for a general term and each page product for it's own main keyword. Our site offers accommodation such apartments, hotels and vacation rentals so this is my structure: Index: Main Keyword 1 | Keyword 2 | Site name(brand name) Page Product 1: Main Keyword 1 | Keyword 2 | Site name (brand name) Page Product 2: Main Keyword 1 | Keyword 2 | Site name (brand name) Also can I use the brand name at the end of title tag with separate words ? example: londonescape or london escape or londonescape.net London Apartments | short term london apartments | London Escape or London Apartments | short term london apartments | LondonEscape I think ''London Escape'' is better because has more popularity. Looking forward to hear from you. Thanks, Giuseppe
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WorldEscape0 -
How to know if a link in a directory will be good for my site?
Hi! Some time ago, a friend of my added our site to a directory. I did not notice it until today, when in the search results for my domain name, the directory came in the first page, in the four position. My friend wrote a nice article, describing our bussiness, and the page has a doFollow link. Looking at the metrics of that directory, I found the following: Domain Authority: 70; main page authority: 76; linking domain roots: 1383; total links: 94663 (several anchor texts); facebook shares: 26; facebook likes: 14; tweets: 20; Google +1: 15. The directory accept a free article about a company, does not review it before it is published, but look for duplicated articles representing spam; so one company can only have one listing (in theory). Is there any formula to know if a directory is safe to publish a doFollow link? If they don't review the link I would say is not a good signal, but is there any other factors to take into account?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | te_c0 -
Someone COPIED my entire site on Google- what should I do?
I purchased a very high ranked and old site a year or so ago. Now it appears that the people I purchased from completely copied the site all graphics and content. They have now built that site up high in rankings and I dont want it to compromise my site. These sites look like mirror images of each other What can I do?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TBKO0 -
How Fast Can You Rank a New Domain?
How long would it take to get a 1 page ranking for a new site after Penguin? Thinking about starting fresh. New site would have fresh content and keyword in the domain.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | veed230 -
Should I 301 Redirect a Site with an 'Unnatural Link' Warning?
Hey Fellow Mozzers, I have recently been approached by a new client that has been issued with an 'Unnatural Link' warning and lost almost all of their rankings. Open Site Explorer shows a ton of spammy links all using main keyword anchor text and there are way too many of them to even consider manually getting them removed. There are two glimmers of hope for the client; The first is that the spammy links are dropping off at a rate of about 25 per week; The second is that they own both the .com and the .co.uk domain for their business. I would really appreciate some advice on the best way to handle this, should I :- Wait it out for some of the spammy links to drop off whilst at the same time pushing social media and build some good clean links using the URL and brand as anchor text? Then submit a recosideration request? Switch the website over from the .com domain to the .co.uk domain and carry out a 301 redirect? Switch the website over from the .com to the .co.uk without doing a redirect and start again for the client with a clean slate? I would still register an address change via Webmaster Tools. Add a duplicate site on the .co.uk domain. Leave the .com site in place but rel="canonical" the entire domain over to the .co.uk Any advice would be very much apprecited. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AdeLewis
Ade.0