Duplicate content and rel canonicals?
-
Hi. I have a question relating to 2 sites that I manage with regards to duplicate content. These are 2 separate companies but the content is off a data base from the one(in other words the same). In terms of the rel canonical, how would we do this so that google does not penalise either site but can also have the content to crawl for both or is this just a dream?
-
Hi,
I have to agree with Devanur-Rafi. If both of the sites are serving the exact content, although Google have the power to do whatever they want, they'll most likely take the rel=canonical into consideration and display the page the tag is pointing to over the second site.
So, yes it is a dream to display both site with the same content in the search result and by using the canonical tag, Google won't penalize both sites and display the preferred site.
That's my 2 cents.
Thank you!
-
Hi William, thanks for sharing your experience here. My experience has been totally different from that of your's.
Here is what Dr.Pete has to say..
Taken from: http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
2) Can I Use Rel=Canonical Cross-domain?
Yes – in late 2009, Google announced support for cross-domain use of rel=canonical. This is typically for syndicated content, when you’re concerned about duplication and only want one version of the content to be eligible for ranking.
(3) Should I Use Rel=Canonical Cross-Domain?
That’s a tougher question. First off, Google may choose to ignore cross-domain use of rel=canonical if the pages seem too different or it appears manipulative. The ideal use of cross-domain rel=canonical would be a situation where multiple sites owned by the same entity share content, and that content is useful to the users of each individual site. In that case, you probably wouldn’t want to use 301-redirects (it could confuse users and harm the individual brands), but you may want to avoid duplicate content issues and control which property Google displays in search results. I would not typically use rel=canonical cross-domain just to consolidate PageRank.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
Its true they are a strong hint but when the domains are not the same, the canonical tag will not work as well as you would think.
I've attempted this personally and it didn't work that well.
-
Except for very exceptional cases, Google considers and respects the rel=canonical implementation and its a strong hint for them.
Here you go for more:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/rel-canonical-html-head/
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
The canonical tags as mentioned by Kingof5 is directional. Google can still do whatever it wants.
Preferably you should canonical the duplicate pages to the original but that may cause one to not be indexed. That still may help as the authority from the other site will be forwarded (theoretically) to your canonical page.
But yes, it is a dream.
-
There are no absolutes with canonicals. Google treats them as suggestions, not rules.
-
Hi, with rel=canonical in place, there is no way that both the pages from the two sites appearing and ranking in the search results. Only the canonical or the preferred page will be indexed and can rank in Google.
You should be thinking along the lines to make the content on both the sites unique. Though these two sites operate and target the same niche, you can definitely make the content unique from each other.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
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 Issues: Duplicate Content
Hi there
Technical SEO | | Kingagogomarketing
Moz flagged the following content issues, the page has duplicate content and missing canonical tags.
What is the best solution to do? Industrial Flooring » IRL Group Ltd
https://irlgroup.co.uk/industrial-flooring/ Industrial Flooring » IRL Group Ltd
https://irlgroup.co.uk/index.php/industrial-flooring Industrial Flooring » IRL Group Ltd
https://irlgroup.co.uk/index.php/industrial-flooring/0 -
Partially duplicated content on separate pages
TL;DR: I am writing copy for some web pages. I am duplicating some bits of copy exactly on separate web pages. And in other cases I am using the same bits of copy with slight alterations. Is this bad for SEO? Details: We sell about 10 different courses. Each has a separate page. I'm currently writing copy for those pages. Some of the details identical for each course. So I can duplicate the content and it will be 100% applicable. For example, when we talk about where we can run courses (we go to a company and run it on their premises) – that's applicable to every course. Other bits are applicable with minor alterations. So where we talk about how we'll tailor the course, I will say for example: "We will the tailor the course to the {technical documents|customer letters|reports} your company writes." Or where we have testimonials, the headline reads "Improving {customer writing|reports|technical documents} in every sector and industry". There is original content on each page. The duplicate stuff may seem spammy, but the alternative is me finding alternative re-wordings for exactly the same information. This is tedious and time-consuming and bizarre given that the user won't notice any difference. Do I need to go ahead and re-write these bits ten slightly different ways anyway?
Technical SEO | | JacobFunnell0 -
Need help with rel canonical!
I have a client who's MOZ crawl is coming back with 62 "notices" about rel canonical. Is this bad? On the report, it lists the url, then "Tag Value" as the home page.....what does this mean exactly? Are they pointing all the pages to the home page? I think I have 301 and rel can confused....
Technical SEO | | cschwartzel0 -
Duplicate content - font size and themes
Hi, How do we sort duplicate content issues with: http://www.ourwebsite.co.uk/ being the same as http://www.ourwebsite.co.uk/StyleType=SmallFont&StyleClass=FontSize or http://www.ourwebsite.co.uk/?StyleType=LargeFont&StyleClass=FontSize and http://www.ourwebsite.co.uk/legal_notices.aspx being the same as http://www.ourwebsite.co.uk/legal_notices.aspx?theme=default
Technical SEO | | Houses0 -
Rel=canonical issue
Re. http://www.appetise.com. We have been alerted that we are "not making appropriate use of the rel=canonical tag". Please could someone just clarify this for us and let us know the recommended remedial action we need to take to rectify the issue? Many Thanks, RB
Technical SEO | | E-resistible0 -
Noindex duplicate content penalty?
We know that google now gives a penalty to a whole duplicate if it finds content it doesn't like or is duplicate content, but has anyone experienced a penalty from having duplicate content on their site which they have added noindex to? Would google still apply the penalty to the overall quality of the site even though they have been told to basically ignore the duplicate bit. Reason for asking is that I am looking to add a forum to one of my websites and no one likes a new forum. I have a script which can populate it with thousands of questions and answers pulled direct from Yahoo Answers. Obviously the forum wil be 100% duplicate content but I do not want it to rank for anyway anyway so if I noindex the forum pages hopefully it will not damage the rest of the site. In time, as the forum grows, all the duplicate posts will be deleted but it's hard to get people to use an empty forum so need to 'trick' them into thinking the section is very busy.
Technical SEO | | Grumpy_Carl0 -
Duplicate Content and Canonical use
We have a pagination issue, which the developers seem reluctant (or incapable) to fix whereby we have 3 of the same page (slightly differing URLs) coming up in different pages in the archived article index. The indexing convention was very poorly thought up by the developers and has left us with the same article on, for example, page 1, 2 and 3 of the article index, hence the duplications. Is this a clear cut case of using a canonical tag? Quite concerned this is going to have a negative impact on ranking, of course. Cheers Martin
Technical SEO | | Martin_S0