If my article is reposted on another blog, using re=canonical, does that count as a link back?
-
Hey all!
My company blog is interested in letting another blog repost our article. We would ask them to use "re-canonical" in the mark-up to avoid Google digging through "duplicate" info out there. I was wondering, if the other site does use the "re=canonical", will that appear as a backlink or no?
I understand that metrics will flow back to my original URL and not the canonical one, but I am wondering if the repost will additionally show as a backlink.
Thanks!
-
Thank you for your detailed and clear explanation.
-
Thanks so much EGOL, super helpful
-
If they add the to the head of their page then here is what will happen.....
- the page with your article on their website will not be indexed by Google (they are not 100% good on this but they don't do badly)
- the page on their website will appear in your search console as a link with the note.... "Links to your site" as.... "via this intermediate link: http://theirdomain.com/page-where-your-article-is-published.html")
- any page on their website that links to your article page on their website will appear in your search console as a link with the note.... "Links to your site" as.... "via this intermediate link: http://theirdomain.com/page-where-your-article-is-published.html")
- any page on any other website that links to your article page on their website will appear in your search console as a link with the note.... "Links to your site" as.... "via this intermediate link: http://theirdomain.com/page-where-your-article-is-published.html")
This is how Google currently handles this. They will likely handle it the same in the future, but they could change their mind without tellin' anybody, which they have been known to do.
In my opinion, this is the proper way of giving your content to other people. It prevents them from competing against you in the SERPs with your content on their website. The problem is getting people to agree to it and a lot of other webmasters doing understand it.
This article can be viewed on their website by thousands of people and they can enjoy the ad revenue from it, their visitors can read it and share it, and link to it -- and those shares and links will bring visitors into the article page on their website.
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
-
Website's server IP address is redirected to blog by mistake; does Google responds?
Hi all, Our website's server IP address is set to be redirected to our blog by mistake and it stayed same for months. Is there any way Google recognises it and how it responds if so? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Too many "nofollow" outgoing links are Okay?
Hi all, Our forum have so many discussions and topics where our users leave their websites and oter URLs which will be marked "nofollow" by default. Beside spammy websites, is that Okay to have so many "nofollow" outgoing links? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
How is best to use Permalinks for Wordpress /category/postname or /postname
Hello , I have a question Regarding the Permalink structure form Wordpress ,I am trying to figure out what would be the best structure of the blog post link ,for the moment I am using the structure example.com/postname and I changed the structure to example.com/category/postname ,redirected with 301 the old links to the new links and I thought about it and wanted to ask , I would really appreciate if you could tell me what is best form SEO point of view to do. Regards,
Algorithm Updates | | anitawapa0 -
Content Caching Memory & Removal of 301 Redirect for Relieving Links Penalty
Hi, A client site has had very poor link legacy, stretching for over 5 years. I started the campaign a year ago, providing valuable good quality links. Link removals and creating a disavow to Google have been done, however after months and months of waiting nothing has happened. If anything, after the recent penguin update, results have been further affected. A 301 redirect was undertaken last year, consequently associating those bad links with the new site structure. I have since removed the 301 redirect in an attempt to detach this legacy, however with little success. I have read up on this and not many people appear to agree whether this will work. Therefore, my new decision is to start a fresh using a new domain, switching from the .com to .co.uk version, helping remove all legacy and all association with the spam ridden .com. However, my main concern with this is whether Google will forever cach content from the spammy .com and remember it, because the content on the new .co.uk site will be exactly the same (content of great quality, receiving hundreds of visitors each month from the blog section along) The problem is definitely link related and NOT content as I imagine people may first query. This could then cause duplicate content, knowing that this content pre-existed on another domain - I will implement a robots.txt file removing all of the .com site , as well as a no index no follow - and I understand you can present a site removal to Google within webmaster tools to help fast track the deindexation of the spammy .com - then once it has been deindexed, the new .co.uk site will go live with the exact same content. So my question is whether Google will then completely forget that this content has ever existed, allowing me to use exactly the same content on the new .co.uk domain without the threat of a duplicate content issue? Also, any insights or experience in the removal of a 301 redirect, detaching legacy and its success would also be very helpful! Thank you, Denver
Algorithm Updates | | ProdoDigital0 -
External Linking Best Practices Question
Is it frowned upon to use basic anchor text such as "click here" within a blog article when linking externally? I understand, ideally, you want to provide a descriptive anchor text, especially linking internally, but can it negatively affect your own website if you don't use a descriptive anchor text when linking externally?
Algorithm Updates | | RezStream80 -
Should I use canonical tags on my site?
I'm trying to keep this a generic example, so apologies if this is too vague. On my main website, we've always had a duplicate content issue. The main focus of our site is breaking down to specific, brick and mortar locations. We have to duplicate the description of product/service for every geographic location (this is a legal requirement). So for example, you might have the parent "product/service" page targeting the term, and then 100's of sub pages with "product/service San Francisco", "product/service Austin", etc. These pages have identical content except for the geographic location is dynamically swapped out. There is also additional useful content like google map of area, local resources, etc. As I said this was always seen as an SEO issue, specifically you could see in the way that googlebot would crawl pages and how pagerank flowed through the site that having 100's of pages with identical copy and just swapping out the geographic location wasn't seen as good content, however we still always received traffic and conversions for the long tail geographic terms so we left it. Las year, with Panda, we noticed a drop in traffic and thought it was due to this duplicate issue so I added canonical tags to all our geographic specific product/service pages that pointed back to the parent page, that seemed to be received well by google and traffic was back to normal in short order. However, recently what I notice a LOT in our SERP pages is if I type in a geographic specific term, i.e. "product/service san francisco", our deep page with the canonical tag is what google is ranking. Google inserts its own title tag on the SERP page and leaves the description blank as it doesn't index the page due to the canonical tag on the page. Essentially what I think it is rewarding is the site architecture which organizes the content to the specific geo in the URL: site.com/service/location/san-francisco. Other than that there is no reason for it to rank that page. Sorry if this is lengthy, thanks for reading all of that! Essentially my question is, should I keep the canonical tags on the site or take them off since Google insists on ranking the page? If I am ranking already then the potential upside to doing that is ranking higher (we're usually in the 3-6 spot on the result page) and also higher CTR because we can get a description back on our resulting page. The counter argument is I'm already ranking so leave it and focus on other things. Appreciate your thoughts on this!
Algorithm Updates | | edu-SEO0 -
Bounce Back or Bounce Through
Bounce rate is defined as 'single page visits to a site divided by total visits to the site' as I understand it. It could be argued that a well designed site might vector people on to other sites effectively (I generally use Wikipedia this way for instance). On the other hand a site that bounces people back to where they came from may be genuinely poor. So the questions: Is the bounce rate really calculated in the stated way by Google? Is it used, as far as we know, as a metric for the search engine? What should we do to mitigate the effects of this poor metric?! thanks, Mike
Algorithm Updates | | SKE0 -
Another Panda update?
Our high quality (IMHO!) editorial technology site got hit by around ~20% of Google search referrals when Panda went live in the UK on the 12th. But the last couple of days it's returned to "normal". Is that the effects of our frantic scrabbling around trying things, or have Google tweaked the algorithm again, to remove the editorial sites which got caught accidentally?
Algorithm Updates | | StuartAnderton0