Is it appropriate to use canonical for a yearly post with similar content?
-
I've begun writing an annual review of local business directories.
Post from 2012 is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-in-2012/
New 2014 post is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-2014/
Is this appropriate use?
Next year the post will be similar, but different metrics reported and slightly different review.
Side note: For some reason the post hasn't been indexed by Google yet. Usually new posts are indexed as soon as they are shared on social media.
-
My suggestion would be to go beyond creating 'yearly' top lists for the site (these are old and tired). Look to create an 'Evergreen' content page that you can use and leverage year over year, build on and create a community and discussion around. Discuss the changes each year by revamping the list, ask people their input (UGC) and discuss why some of the one's that fell, did, while also pointing out new one's didn't fall and why
By creating a page like this - you leverage the long term effect of a page that never gets old, or outdated (as one does with regards to a specified URL like 2012 or 2014) in your examples. This will also help you create a very strong profile from a backlink perspective as your links will accumulate into 1 evergreen/lasting URL - that never gets outdated with yearly updates you will make. Might want to use the META information for data posted and date expired to ensure that the crawlers know to come back and recrawl when a page is live. Ensure it's mapped and setup properly in the Sitemap XML file too
I think the advantages of moving towards this will help your link profile, leverage a great piece of content year over year, making it move 'sharable' from a social media perspective and leverage long-term value.
Just my 2 cents to help you out
Cheers, Rob
-
Probably not, you have only a handful of post and this is not a problem as far as duplicate content goes.
if you want them all to rank, then don't canonical them a only one will rank, try adding a paragraph of unique text to each. -
Canonical is great for posts that are the same, as these posts are not and they represent different statistics I would say not.
If a user wants to find a review of directories in 2012 then the canonical would stop this and thus the user wouldn't be able to get that.
in short- No
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
-
Multilingual -> ahref lang, canonical and duplicated title content
Hi all! We have our site eurasmus.com where we are implementing the multilingual.
Technical SEO | | Eurasmus.com
We have already available english and spanish and we use basically href lang to control different areas. First question: When a page is not translated but still is visible in both langauges under /en and /es is it enough with the hreflang or should we
add a canonical as well? Nowadays we are apply href lang and only canonicals to the one which are duplicated
in the same language. Second question: When some pages are not translated, like http://eurasmus.com/en/info/find-intern-placement-austria and http://eurasmus.com/es/info/find-intern-placement-austria,
we are setting up the href lang but still moz detects title and meta duplicated (not duplicate page content).
What do you suggest we should do? Let me know and thank you before hand for your help!0 -
Duplicate content problem
Hi there, I have a couple of related questions about the crawl report finding duplicate content: We have a number of pages that feature mostly media - just a picture or just a slideshow - with very little text. These pages are rarely viewed and they are identified as duplicate content even though the pages are indeed unique to the user. Does anyone have an opinion about whether or not we'd be better off to just remove them since we do not have the time to add enough text at this point to make them unique to the bots? The other question is we have a redirect for any 404 on our site that follows the pattern immigroup.com/news/* - the redirect merely sends the user back to immigroup.com/news. However, Moz's crawl seems to be reading this as duplicate content as well. I'm not sure why that is, but is there anything we can do about this? These pages do not exist, they just come from someone typing in the wrong url or from someone clicking on a bad link. But we want the traffic - after all the users are landing on a page that has a lot of content. Any help would be great! Thanks very much! George
Technical SEO | | canadageorge0 -
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?
Technical SEO | | ProsperoDigital0 -
Duplicate Content Issue
My issue with duplicate content is this. There are two versions of my website showing up http://www.example.com/ http://example.com/ What are the best practices for fixing this? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | OOMDODigital0 -
Adding content into an iframe
I want to buy an app/program that will help me create unique content but the content will be inserted to the page via an iframe. I have heard that iframes are problematic. I know that there will not be a lot of indexable content from this but I think that it will make people want to link to me. I would like to hear from someone's experience if I should go ahead or not.
Technical SEO | | JillB20130 -
Rel=canonical + no index
We have been doing an a/b test of our hp and although we placed a rel=canonical tag on the testing page it is still being indexed. In fact at one point google even had it showing as a sitelink . We have this problem through out our website. My question is: What is the best practice for duplicate pages? 1. put only a rel= canonical pointing to the "wanted original page" 2. put a rel= canonical (pointing to the wanted original page) and a no index on the duplicate version Has anyone seen any detrimental effect doing # 2? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Morris770 -
Dismal content rankings
Hi, I realize this is a very broad question, but I am going to ask it anyways in the hopes that someone might have some insight. I have created a great deal of unique content for the site http://www.healthchoices.ca. You can select a video category from the top dropdown, then click on a video beside the provider box to see. The articles I've written are accessible by the View Article tab under each video. I have worked hard to make the articles informative and they are all unique with quotes from expert physicians. Even for strange health conditions that don't have a lot of competition - I don't see us appearing. Our search results are quite dismal for the amount of content we have. I guess I'm checking to see if anyone is able to point me in the right direction at all? If anything jumps out... Thanks, Erin
Technical SEO | | erinhealthchoices0 -
Duplicate content?
I have a question regarding a warning that I got on one of my websites, it says Duplicate content. I'm canonical url:s and is also using blocking Google out from pages that you are warning me about. The pages are not indexed by Google, why do I get the warnings? Thanks for great seotools! 3M5AY.png
Technical SEO | | bnbjbbkb0