One more question about rel=canonical
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around rel=canonical and its importance. Thanks to the community, I've been able to understand most of it. Still, I have a couple of very specific questions:
- I share certain blog posts on the Huffington Post. Here's an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cedric-lizotte/munich-travel-guide_b_13438956.html - Of course I post these on my blog as well. Here: http://www.continentscondiments.com/things-munich-classics/ - Obviously the HuffPo has a huge DA, and I'll never match it. However the original post is mine, on my blog, and not on the HuffPo. They wont - obviously - add a rel=canonical just for me and for the sake of it, they have a million other things to do.
QUESTION: Should I add a rel=canonical to my own site pointing to the post on the HuffPost? What would be the advantage? Should I just leave this alone?
- I share blog posts on Go4TravelBlog too. Example: http://www.go4travelblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-munich/ - but, once again, the original post is on one of my blogs. In this case, it's on another blog of mine: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-in-munich/
QUESTION: Well it's pretty much the same! Should I beg Go4TravelBlog to add a rel=canonical pointing to mine? If they refuse, what do I do? Would it be better to add a rel=canonical from my site to theirs, or do I fight it out and have a rel=canonical pointing to my own post? Why?
Thanks a million for your help!
-
Unfortunately I don't do very mainstream stuff, which means that my content isn't very shareable. On top of that, I don't write provocative pieces, which means that they aren't commented on a lot. I know how to do those things and I did them for past employers, but I've chosen personally not to do so because I find them toxic. This also means that my readership, at least on my blog, is very low. Of course I could go back to my old ways - I did here with a lot of success: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/food-bloggers-post-negative-reviews-comped-meals-thoughts-strange-industry/ - but I don't like the vicious arguments that ensue on social media.
Can I take a look at your blog? Maybe I could pick up a few ideas!
And, once again, I haven't made any money from having a blog. I got, what, $15 from Google once? That's about it!
-
It is important not to get carried away with "publishing articles on other sites for links' especially if those links are in highly optimized anchor text. A couple posts on HP with a link or two is OK, but if you are doing this alot and Google is still doing the old style Penguin penalties, it can kill the value of your domain permanently.
In the topic area of my business, I don't publish anything on other websites. I want to spend all of my writing time building the value of my brand. I feel that if I am a worthy author, my readers will share my work for me and my need to promote it will be zero to minimal. This has always worked well with the audiences that I write form.
-
Yes, and yes. And also consider Egol's comments.
-
EGOL, thanks for your thoughts.
I'm a freelance writer. I've never made a penny with my blog and probably never will. It's a business card more than anything.
Try to get them to give you rel=canonical. If they will do that then publishing on their site is building value for your business. If they will not do that then it tells you something important about them. They are 100% for themselves and are all about having other people carry them around in a sedan chair.
Yes, I agree with you fully that they want free content to carry their brand. That's the whole premise of their business and that's why they have so many problems with disgruntled employees. That being said, if you take a look at the link I shared, you can see that every paragraph or so links directly to one of my blog posts. What I shared on their website is more or less a recap of all of my own blog posts for this specific city.
On top of that, well, there's no better business card, as a writer, than a series of posts of the Huff Post linking towards my stuff!
Thanks again for your thoughts, I'll keep everything in mind, of course.
-
Hm. So that probably means that I don't have any sort of possibility towards modifying the rel=canonical on the HuffPost. Right? Can you think of any other way? I only have access to the body.
This means that I should simply ignore and keep going. Right?
And if I can get go4TravelBlog (or any other place where my content is published) to add a rel=canonical pointing towards my version of it, I'd be golden. Right?
Thanks again!
-
I totally agree with Adriaan's comments.
I'll add a few thoughts about publishing philosophy....
Keep in mind the amount of time that you spent on creating content that you give away AND the value that the content can bring if it is unique to your website and not available anywhere else on the web.
If your goal is to "get your message out" then by all means get it published in as many places as you can. If your goal is to "build value for your business" then you have to think about things carefully.
If you can write an article in a short amount of time and give it to HP and in return get a link and a brand mention then it might be worth letting them use it. If I was going to do this, I would publish it first on my own site and make sure that it is indexed and then give it to HP for publication there.
Pay attention to where you copy of the article ranks in the search engines. If HP is always outranking you for your own content that makes them a much less attractive place to publish your content. If that is happening and they will not give you rel=canonical, then I would probably stop giving them my content. Giving them my content under those conditions is not "building value for my business".
Try to get them to give you rel=canonical. If they will do that then publishing on their site is building value for your business. If they will not do that then it tells you something important about them. They are 100% for themselves and are all about having other people carry them around in a sedan chair.
All of the above was written about content that you can generate easily and with minimal cost. In situations where you have a real masterpiece, then there is a stronger case for keeping it only on your own site and spending your efforts on "promoting" it in other locations but not giving the content away.
So, before you give away content, think about the many options that you have and choose the one that "gets your word out" or "builds your business" to a maximum degree. There is no "one size fits all".
-
I'm afraid not, Google is very clear on this matter: _When we encounter a rel=canonical designation in the , it’s disregarded. _https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
-
Thanks for this answer.
Of course I can't go play around in HuffPost's headers. What I can do, though, is change the body, which includes the code and the href's. Would a rel=canonical in the body still work? How would I go about implementing it?
-
Placing a rel=canonical on your own blogposts to HuffPost is essentially telling Google that you're not unique enough to be indexed and that you want all ranking juice to flow to HP. Which isn't the case I guess. I would leave it alone. Nevertheless it will be very hard to outrank HP in this case.
This is what Yoast tells us about cross domain canonicals: _"You might have the same piece of content on several domains. For instance, SearchEngineJournal regularly republishes articles from Yoast.com (with explicit permission). Look at every one of those articles, and you’ll see a rel=canonical link point right back at our original article. This means all the links pointing at their version of the article count towards the ranking of our canonical version. They get to use our content to please their audience; we get a clear benefit from it too. Everybody wins." _(https://yoast.com/rel-canonical/#cross-domain-canonical)
So IF you can get HP to put a canonical to your own blog, this would be highly favorable for your own ranking. You could use the 'everybody wins' argument to try to get this working.
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
-
One Main Brand Domain - One EMD which Ranks Better
Hello SEO MOZers! We have one one main ecommerce site and I have just discovered we have an EMD sitting on a .co.uk, for one of our premium product ranges, and it actually outranks our main website. It appears on page one. My question is how do I handle the EMD? I don't want to start building authority to this site, as we are currently developing the main brand site, however I can't ignore that it is ranking. There is relatively little content. There are links on the page (it's only one page) that go through to the product section on the main site. But should I 301 redirect it? What would be your advise? I want to capitalise on any traffic we could benefit from, and ultimately I want the main site to rank better for this product's keywords. Any help would much appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | CarlaAction1 -
Rel=canonical vs noindex/follow - tabs with individual URLs
Hi everyone I've got a situation that I haven't seen in quite this way before. I would like some advice on whether I should be rel=canonicalzing of noindexing/following a range of pages on a clients website. I've just started working on a website that creates individual URLs for tabs within each page which has resulted in several URLs being created for each listing: Example URLs: hotel-downtown-calgary hotel-downtown-calgary/gallery?tab hotel-downtown-calgary?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/map?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/facilities?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab hotel-downtown-calgary/in-the-area?tab Google has indexed over 1500 pages with the "?tab" parameter (there are 4380 page indexed for the site in total), and also seems to be indexing some of these pages without the "?tab" parameter i.e. ("hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews" instead of "hotel-downtown-calgary/reviews?tab") so the amount of potential duplication could be more. These tabbed pages are getting minimal traffic from organic search, so I've got no issues with taking them out of the index - the question is how. There are the issues I see: Each tab has the same title as the other tabs for each location, so lots of title duplication. Each individual tab doesn't have much content (although the content each tab has is unique). I would usually expect the tabs to be distinguished by the parameters only, not have unique URLs - if that was the case we wouldn't have a duplication issue. So the question is: rel=canonical or noindex/follow? I can see benefits of both. Looking forward to your thoughts!
On-Page Optimization | | Digitator0 -
Help! A couple of basic questions on dup. content, pagination and tumblr blogs.
Hi, and many thanks in advance for any assistance. According to our GWMT we currently have over a thousand duplicated title tags and meta descriptions. These stem from tabs that we have located beneath the body copy, which when you click on them display offers or itineraries (we're a travel company). So the URLs change to having "?st=Offer" or "?st=Itinerary" at the end, and are considered to be duplicating the original page's title and meta des. Sometimes the original page is also paginated, and shows the same duplication errors. What would be the best way to ensure we're not duplicating anything? Also, we have a tumblr blog, where there's single page displaying all the blog content, but also links to each blog on a separate individual page. We would like to keep the individual pages as we can optimise to target specific keywords, but want to avoid any duplication issues again. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | LV70 -
Two keyowrds for one page
Hi there! I just optimize two pages for the same keyword as I didn't find a especific keyword for each one independently. On the other hand, these keyword was "suitalbe" for the same two pages. Obviously Google will have to "make a decision" regarding what page should it be indexed in the first postion? In what aspects or elements of the page should I incide in order to give priority to one page more than the other one? Thnaks
On-Page Optimization | | juanmiguelcr0 -
On page link question, creating an additional 'county' layer between states and zips/cities
Question We have a large site that has a page for all 50 states. Each of these pages has unique content, but following the content has a MASSIVE amount of links for each zip AND city in that state. I am also in the process of creating unique content for each of these cities and zips HOWEVER, I was wondering would it make sense to create an additional 'county' layer between the states and the zips/cities. Would the additional 'depth' of the links bring down the overall rank of the long tail city and zip pages, or would the fact that the counties would knock the on page link count down from a thousand or so, to a management 50-100 substantially improve the overall quality and ranking of the site? To illustrate, currently I have State -> city and zip pages (1200+ links on each state page) what i want to do is do state -> county (5-300 counties on each state page) -> city + zip (maybe 50-100 links on each county page). What do you guys think? Am I incurring some kind of automatic penalty for having 1000+ links on a page?
On-Page Optimization | | ilyaelbert0 -
Two Word Company Name (Combined to One) & SEO
Hi All, I'm dealing with a company that has a two word name like "GreatCompany". They rank #1 for that but not for "Great Company". The phrase is not super competitive, but obviously they are not writing the company name with two words anywhere on their site. Has anyone had to deal with something like this? Thinking about creative solutions but I'm fairly sure we're going to need to use the name both ways to have an effect here (or use PPC to augment) but I don't really love the idea of doing that... will feel very odd and inconsistent for visitors. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | ketanmv0 -
Newbie with a few questions
Hi! First post here. Would be great if someone could help me out with a few questions: 1. When I search a brand-name, there are 6 pages in 2 columns listed right below the brand in the SERPS. Is it possible to choose which pages in the "category list" that Google shows? 2. From what I've understood, the keywords being included early in the content is of much higher importance than using them in a perfectly structured tag hierarchy. Instead of using a hierarchy like this: I could use something like this (which reads much better): ****Would this make any difference? 3. My category pages show up in the search listings. Is this a bad thing? Should I nofollow or noindex? 4. Category and author pages triggers duplicate content in seomoz. Should I do anything about it? Should i make all the excerpts unique to avoid this? 4. Is the title tag recommendation of 66 characters with or without the brand name? Am I good as long as the post part of the title is less than 66? Remove the brand name from the title all together?****
On-Page Optimization | | mathiasppc0 -
Page title in SERP question
Has anyone typed in a phrase in Google and seen their listing on the SERP, but the page title on the Google SERP is not what the CMS is set to ? Ie the page title in the SERP is not what is expected? Something related to the company, but not what is set on the CMS… Very odd – has anyone seen something like this before? What could be causing it? Is there a way to change it?
On-Page Optimization | | inhouseninja0