Cross-Domain Canonical - Should I use it under the following circumstances?
-
I have a number of hyper local directories, where businesses get a page dedicated to them. They can add images and text, plus contact info, etc.
Some businesses list on more than one of these directory sites, but use exactly the same description.
I've tried asking businesses to use unique text when listing on more than one site to avoid duplication issues, but this is proving to be too much work for the business owner!
Can I use a cross-domain canonical and point Google towards the strongest domain from the group of directories?
What effects will this have? And is there an alternative way to deal with the duplicate content?
Thanks - I look forward to hearing your ideas!
-
It's always hard to talk in generalities about complex issues like this, but it sounds like a situation where cross-domain canonicals might make sense. I guess it really boils down to whether you're having issues with the duplicates and what the scope is (are there 3 of each or 300). In some cases, those duplicates just mean that one site will win, and Google will pick the winner. In other cases, the main site could actually be harmed by the duplicates. In some cases, honestly, multiple sites might rank fine. It really varies wildly.
The cross-domain canonicals would help prevent any kind of duplicate penalty (like being hit by Panda), but it would also mean that the non-canonical versions would no longer rank. So, you'd be protecting the strongest site for each listing, but possibly cutting off the smaller sites.
I haven't seen an implementation where different sites were canonical for different listings/articles/etc., at least not on large-scale, so that's a bit tougher to predict. If you have sites A-Z, and A is canonical for one listing, B for another, C for another, etc., that could get a bit tricky. I know large organizations, like newspapers, who syndicate content, have had good results in many cases with cross-domain canonical.
There is also a syndication-source tag, but that's really a weaker tag, and I haven't seen much data on it. The other option, traditionally, would be a solid link-back strategy (the non-canonical versions link to the canonical version). Unfortunately, at large scale, that could start to make you look like a link network, so I think that gets risky in this case.
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
-
Using one domain for email and another domain for your website, but redirects...
Hello - We are rebranding and our new name is fairly lengthy. We own all main domain versions of our brand name - .com, .new and .org - There is a very high search volume for the new brand name as it is a merger of 2 popular existing brands so want to take advantage of that and use our full name within our website domain name. However, since the name is a little long as mentioned - 25 characters - we also own the 3 character acronym of the new brand so we are debating on using the acronym for our new email addresses. ie name@abc.com so it is user friendly. We would obviously redirect the acronym email domain to point to the longer website domain. Are there any negative SEO effects if we do that? Use the longer domain for the website and shorter acronym for our email? Thank you
Technical SEO | | KRBishopBh1 -
Will canonical solve this?
Hi all, I look after a website which sells a range of products. Each of these products has different applications, so each product has a different product page. For eg. Product one for x application Product one for y application Product one for z application Each variation page has its own URL as if it is a page of its own. The text on each of the pages is slightly different depending on the application, but generally very similar. If I were to have a generic page for product one, and add canonical tags to all the variation pages pointing to this generic page, would that solve the duplicate content issue? Thanks in advance, Ethan
Technical SEO | | Analoxltd0 -
We switched the domain from www.blog.domain.com to domain.com/blog.
We switched the domain from www.blog.domain.com to domain.com/blog. This was done with the purpose of gaining backlinks to our main website as well along with to our blog. This set us very low in organic traffic and not to mention, lost the backlinks. For anything, they are being redirected to 301 code. Kindly suggest changes to bring back all the traffic.
Technical SEO | | arun.negi0 -
Value of domain name for domain authority. Please help to figure out!
I am doing SEO for an appliance repair company. Their company website's domain doesn't have high authority, and I am going to increase that by link earning and content improving. I think a better domain name might also help me out. The current URL contain the word "appliance" but doesn't have "repair" in it. I am thinking a new domain that would contain both keywords will serve better. Could you please share with me your thought on this? Am I in the right direction, or not at all? I know Google penalizes mirror sites since this they are considered as duplicated content. I'll upload my content to the new domain and make the old one point to that new URL. I am wondering if canonical might help? Or 301 redirect will be a better solution? Any advise would be highly appreciated! Thank you!
Technical SEO | | kirupa0 -
301 Redirect / cross-domain canonical to a URL w/ Ampersand
I have a question regarding ampersands, we are needing to redirect to a URL w/ an ampersand in the URL: http://local.sfgate.com/b18915250/Sam-&-Associates-Insurance-Agency Will Google pass page authority/juice despite the fact that there is an ampersand in the URL, if we were to 301 redirect or cross-domain canonical to the url? Should we 301 redirect to http://local.sfgate.com/b18915250/Sam-%26-Associates-Insurance-Agency instead of http://local.sfgate.com/b18915250/Sam-&-Associates-Insurance-Agency? I don't have the option of removing the ampersand Thank you for your time!
Technical SEO | | Gatelist0 -
Canonical URL
I previously set the canonical Url in google web masters to the non www version, when I check my on page opt, it tells me that I have a critical issue with this. Should I change it in google web masters back to the www version? if so is there the possibility of negative results? Or is there a better way to deal with this? Note, I have inbound links pointing to both types.
Technical SEO | | bronxpad0 -
Using an exsisting domain for a new busines?
I have a domain name that is in use and has a domain age of 4 years. My question is this, will taking that domain name and promoting it under a completely new business in a completely different industry with a totally different business model hurt getting this new business to rank? The domain name is my first and last name. I've been promoting videos that I like under this domain name. I would now like to use the domain name to promote my local SEO services. Will this hurt my efforts to rank with search engines since Google and others have been indexing the site for a certain industry and topic? Thanks
Technical SEO | | fun52dig
Gary0 -
Two spelling of a domain
I have a customer with two spellings of their domain name. I set up an account for spelling A and forwarded all the email boxes to spelling B becuase people tend to remember spelling A more of the time. Spelling B is the real web site. I also want any www. traffic for spelling A to go to spelling B so I used this .htaccess file in the root of spelling A Options +Indexes +FollowSymLinks
Technical SEO | | freestone
RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.B.com/$1 [R=301,L] I use to just forward A to B from the registrar but made this change to allow for email spelled either way. My question is does this create a duplicate site issue for the bots? Is this in anyway an SEO negative and if so is there a better way to do this. Thanks jw0