Outbound links
-
Hi everyone,
Just a quick question about using info/statistics from other sources in my articles.
If I use a quote/piece of info from another online article do I just say where it's from and link to it? Is this acceptable or do you have to get permission? I find the whole permissions thing quite confusing! I know that outbound links are good for SEO so just wanted to check this.
Thanks!
-
Thanks, EGOL!
You've been very helpful!
-
If they are taking your original content it can be illegal if...
-
they do not have a case for fair use
-
you have not done something to make your content available for other use (such as make it public domain, creative commons, etc.)
Copyright infringement is covered by Federal statute in the United States. If your content is registered you might have a case to sue, even if no financial damage is suffered. It can be considered criminal if the infringer is knowing and willful.
I am not an attorney. I recommend consulting with one if you have copyright problems.
I have done my due diligence and regularly file DMCA's, send informal take down notices, and have my attorney handle situations that might be complex or are against an infringer of note.
-
-
Thank you for your fast response!
Is it actually illegal to do so or is it just frowned upon? I actually compete against some of these sites and it's not just one or two articles, it's the ENTIRE blog (30+ articles).
-
Verbatim articles on a website can often outrank the original source, especially if the original source website is not very strong.
If they do it with my content, I will probably file a DMCA with Google and perhaps with their host.
-
Hello, EGOL.
I like your detailed answer here! I have seen some blogs copy other entire articles (verbatim, images and all) and then just source the original blog link at the bottom of the article. Unfortunately, these sites rank very well for not doing any REAL work.
Is this something that will eventually come back to bite them or are they just going to get away with it forever? Your expertise is very much appreciated!
Thank you!
-
EGOL - thanks so much for this answer. You have really explained this well and put my mind at rest! I will check out the wiki article.
Thanks again.
-
Here is how many people handle these...
If you write your own sentence that incorporates a statistic or a fact that is not original to you, then it is proper to attribute that information to your source. This is usually done in footnote fashion similar to what you see in Wikipedia articles.
This wikipedia article on "citation" is a good place to see examples of how to dot it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
Permission is not required if the work is publicly available on a website or in a published book, unless you have agreed to confidentiality of the informaiton. Just use a footnote and a link to their website or a reference to a printed document. Instead of a link you can give the full url if you don't want to use a hyperlink.
If you are going to quote verbatim a sentence or two, but not more than that, then placing that verbatim text in
is often done. This indents the text, separating it from your own, with a footnote number in brackets at the end. [2] Permission is not needed for a short quote from a book or from a website (unless there is a confidentiality agreement). Just make it clear that you have quoted and keep the length of your quote very short - a sentence or two at most. Many people will also place the
text in italics to really make it clear that you have cited.
How many times can you do this in an article? If you do it once with a sentence or two it should be fine. But if you are going to do it multiple times you could run into an infringement problem. How many times? I would get permission if I was going to use multiple blockquotes from a single source.
If you have any doubts about using the text of others in references or quotes, then it is best to consult an attorney about the "fair use" part of copyright law. I am not an attorney and can't give exact answers on this. In fact, many attorneys will tell you that they can't give exact answers because copyright problems often need to be tested in court in front of a jury. It is hard or impossible what a jury will return in many situations.
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
-
Comment Links and Pingbacks
I'm updating articles on a large site, some have links in the comments (WP site). The question is: 1. Should I remove the links in the comments, or does Google even care? 2. How do pingbacks affect ranking?
On-Page Optimization | | MichaelGregory0 -
Can I have schema.org links as relative on my site? Getting an html validation error.
I'm getting an html validation error on relative schema.org links "Bad value //schema.org/Organization for attribute itemtype on element div: The string //schema.org/Organization is not an absolute URL." This is my code for https site: <code class="input">e itemtype="//schema.org/Organization"><a itemprop="url" class="navbar-brand" …<="" code=""></a></code>
On-Page Optimization | | RoxBrock0 -
Rel="canonical" link should they be to or from an "SEO friendly" url
Thanks for taking the time to review this. So for our example, lets use the following SEO friendly link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry-and-biblical-studies/BA-biblical-studies We'll call this link the SEO VERSION The title of the college is" Pacific Christian College of Minstry and Biblical Studies" The title of the program is "BA Biblical Studies" The QUERY version of the link to this page would be something like: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/index.php?collegeid=22&programid=34 Keep in mind that the meta title, description, and keyword tags for the page are all administerable The SEO VERSION is automatically created from the title of the college, and the title of the program. Each one of these titles can be overidden with a URL slug individually. For instance, the admin could make the link: http://hiu.calibermediagroup.com/undergraduate-on-campus/academics/colleges/pacific-christian-college-of-ministry/biblical-studies by changing the slug for the college to "pacific-christian-college-of-ministry" and the slug for the program to "biblical-studies". Let's call this version the SLUG VERSION So now we have multiple ways to get to the same content. The question on the table is what is best practice for the rel="canonical" link to keep from getting dinged for duplicate content. Let's say that our SEO VERSION is the canonical link for 1 year. Then the choice was made to optimize the links thru the slugs creating the SLUG VERSION. My assumption is that we would keep the SEO VERSION as the canonical link. But then let's say 6 months later that the title of the program is changed in the admin. Now the SEO VERSION has changed and so has the canonical link. Do we lose the link juice garnered over the last 18 months? It would seem to me, that if we use the QUERY version as the canonical link, then any optimizations or changes affect everything except the canonical link, thus keeping the previous link juice earned. But is having an ugly URL as the canonical link detrimental to SEO? Please advise.
On-Page Optimization | | robertdonnell0 -
Competitor's 'hidden' links harming my site?
Hi everyone, I'm new to both Moz & seo, and am attempting to tackle our site's issues after being hit by panda / penguin, so would be grateful for any advice offered. I bought a website 3 years ago after the previous company that ran it went into administration. Having bought the website, it became apparent that the employees of the previous company had copied the entire site content, and relaunched it with a new look / brand. Over the last 3 years they've rewritten much of the content, but there remains a lot of links from their site back to ours which have had the anchor text stripped out, and point to images on our site which have since been removed, example below... <a href="http://www.MyCompany.com/catalog/images/filename.pdf" target="<a class="attribute-value">_blank</a>"><strong>strong>a> What I'm trying to understand is whether the 404 errors being returned by the broken links, and the presence of 'hidden' links on their site, is likely to reflect badly on our site or theirs? I'm not interested in outing anyone here, and I realise the standard recommendation for these kinds of situations is to write to the company telling them to remove the offending content, but if at all possible I'd prefer to fix our site by improving content & links etc, rather than 'force' them to take action and inadvertently improve their own site's content / rankings. As I say, all advice gratefully received 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | Sandy_M0 -
Drop in Internal Links to Root
This morning I noticed in Google Webmaster Tools that my internal links to my root domain (Home Page), dropped from 428,000 to 58,000. It appears that this could be my header or footer links back to the home page that Google is not showing any more. My programmers claim they have not made any changes over the last 30 days. My rankings and traffic are normal. Any cause for concern?
On-Page Optimization | | tdawson090 -
Main page link reduction
I am in the process of reducing the number of internal links from the homepage with the assumption that the more links I have the more "juice" goes to internal pages I have two options since many of the links are costumer service related 1. create one link that leads to a costumer service page and place all the links their. 2. get all those links on the main page as nofollow links. what are your opinions
On-Page Optimization | | ciznerguy0 -
Do footer links apply too many on-page links?
We tend to put a a lot of links in the footers of some of our websites (e.g. www.AlohaWhistler.com). Our CAMPAIGNS report is showing that several pages on such sites have "too many on-page links". We understand the logic that having more than 100 links per page is "too much". Does this also apply to footer links?
On-Page Optimization | | RoyMcClean0 -
Lots of links on homepage to internal pages with keyword rich anchor text - problem?
Hi, All! We have a new potential client, that when looking at his site with a tool, we noticed that the previous SEO company they worked with filled the homepage copy with lots of keyword-rich anchor text links pointing to different pages on the site - many links going to the same page, just with different keywords. These links are not indistinguishable in format from the other text, which is why we only noticed it with a tool. I certainly wouldn't recommend doing that to start with, but once all these links are there, would you recommend taking them down? Is there any conceivable chance it could help the site? Is there a significant reason to think it will harm the site? Or will it just be pretty neutral? In all that's been written (much by SEOMoz) about only the first link's anchor text counting, do subsequent links work like a no-follow in the sense that they are a waste of the link-juice of the page, or is it as if they aren't there at all? (And is "only the first link counts" still the most widely held theory, or have there been new developments since?) Thanks, All!
On-Page Optimization | | debi_zyx0