Link + noindex vs canonical--which is better?
-
In this article http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66359 google mentions if you syndicate content, you should include a link and, ideally noindex, the content, if possible.
I'm wondering why google doesn't mention including a canonical instead the link + noindex?
Is one better than the other?
Any ideas?
-
Can I ask a question that leads on from this - how attractive a proposition is syndicated content it to publishers if you ask them to add a noindex / cross-domain canonical as well as a link from your article? Surely they want a chance to rank, expecially if they are planning on adding their own take and UGC, to differentiate it where possible, as Rand advises here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-leveraging-syndicated-content-effectively
Personally, content syndication is not something I would ever recommend for a client due to the complications from dupe content outweighing the benefits from links that could be earned...it just makes more work when that time could be spent on high quality guest blogging (in my view).
However, a new client is really interested in doing it. But if we offer content for those terms (link + noindex / cross domain canonical) - will there be any interest to use the syndicated articles at all?!
Maybe it would be better to offer the content in return for a link and a guarantee that they will either add unique content to it or canonicalize / noindex?
-
Hay - thanks for those links. I do remember reading those Webmaster Central posts a while back, but hadn't used that technique in practice ever. I think either of the techniques requires good cooperation from your syndication partners to implement. I think in practice, it may not always be easy to have a syndication partner add meta tags specifically for a page of content they are publishing.
In terms of which one is better - I really can't say. I would guess that a nonindex plus a link would probably be more explicit, since in that case, the search engines don't really have to decide which is the real canonical version - since there's only one page of content existing.
Also, the way they describe cross domain canonical sounds kind of wishy-washy ---> "While the rel="canonical" link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive, we do try to follow it where possible."
-
In fact in this post http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/handling-legitimate-cross-domain.html, they mention using a canonical when syndicating content, if the content is similar enough--not sure why they don't mention a canonical in the webmaster guidelines link I included above.
-
Hi, Cross domain canonicalization is a common practice as well (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/10/raising-awareness-of-cross-domain-url.html).
-
If your syndication partners are reliable, the noindex option would be the best choice. This will however not guarantee you that your content will rank above the content of the syndication partner.
I would be reluctant (personal preference) to place a canonical link on the syndicated site pointing back to your domain. My biggest concern would be possible reputation issues with the syndication site hurting you.
Although I can not verify it for sure yet, it does seem that when you embed authorship information in your and the syndicated content, Google seems to favour content from the original source.
I guess the question is really why you want to have your content syndicated? If it is an attempt to build out links, I think a better option would be to provide a snippet to the syndication site, linking to your full content.
-
It seems like two different issues to me. If your content is syndicated on a 3rd party site, Google is saying - ask your partners to no-index the content and provide a link back to your original source. That way your original source will rise above all of those syndicated sources (on many other places around the WWW) to be the highest ranked page
If you are optimizing your own site, they are saying be careful to avoid duplicate versions of the same page within your own site, coming about as a result of canonicalization problems. Canonicalization problems on your site make it appear you have lots of very similar versions of the same page on your own site.
I think I can see how you got confused here - since they are talking about the topic of duplicate content in general - which can be caused either by syndication (publishing one page of content across many different sites) or canonicalization issues (where the same page of content on your own site appears on several different URLs).
Hope that helps!
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
-
How to determine the value of these links?
Hi Guys, How can you determine the value of external links which are deep inside a website. Two examples: http://www.sheknows.com/community/home/ten-tips-buy-car-insurance Two sub-folders deep. http://www.dogfoodhowto.com/899/whats-the-best-puppy-food-for-cockapoo-puppy-at-home.html One sub-folder deep. These links are clearly far from the homepage, so was wondering if they are worthless or how can you determine the value of them? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nattyhall0 -
Is Google ignoring my canonicals?
Hi, We have rel=canonical set up on our ecommerce site but Google is still indexing pages that have rel=canonical. For example, http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?colour=7883&p=3&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?p=4&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/children.html?colour=7886&mode=list These are all indexed but all have rel=canonical implemented. Can anyone explain why this has happened?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HappyJackJr0 -
Link Audit - Sponsor/Partners Images Links
Hi everyone, 1. I'm conducting a link audit and read that if you are a sponsor or partner of a company, links should be nofollowed. I always no follow them if they are money keywords, but branded I leave alone. is that a good strategy? Or do i nofollow my brand name as well? 2. What if I'm a sponsor and have my company logo on their website that links to my website? How would i know if that link should be nofollowed? a. Does it depend on the "alt" of the image? b. Does it depend on the landing page of the link of the image? c. Do i just no follow image links from sponsor pages and partner pages as a whole? Please keep in mind that I'm sponsoring websites that are relevant to my niche. PLEASE HELP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Links to www vs non-www
I was having speed issues when I ran a test under Google Page Speed test and, as a result, switched to using Google Page Speed Service. This meant I had to switch my site from the non-www to the www. Since the switch my page is running faster but my ranking has dropped. What I'm trying to find out is the drop due to all of my previous links going to the non-www or is it because of the site being considered new and is more of a temporary issue. If it is a link issue I will contact everyone I can to see who will update the site address. Thanks everyone!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | toddmatthewca0 -
Are Navigation links different to static links
We are trying to reduce the number of links on our homepage. We could remove some fly out navigation links, We rank 1st on Google for some of these links. Would removing these hurt our SEO. The links are accessible 1 level down if we remove the homepage.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Archers0 -
Link from archived article.
A strong news site has an "archived.domainname" folder, where they have older articles listed. I can get a link on a page where there is a 4 year old article, which will be in this archived sub-domain. My questions: Will Google view a link from a 4 year old article as less valuable. Will Google notice the article is 4 years old and find it odd why the page all of a sudden has a link to my site, and thus devalue such link the sub-domain "archived" does that tell Google it is old and a link will be less valuable thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knielsen0 -
One Way Links vs Two Way Links
Hi, Was speaking to a client today and got asked how damaging two way links are. i.e. domaina.com links to domainb.com and domainb.com links back to domaina.com. I need a nice simple layman's explanation of if/how damaging they are compared to one way links. And please don't answer with you lose link juice as I have a job explaining link juice.... I am explaining things to a non techie! Thank you!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnW-UK0 -
Robots.txt & url removal vs. noindex, follow?
When de-indexing pages from google, what are the pros & cons of each of the below two options: robots.txt & requesting url removal from google webmasters Use the noindex, follow meta tag on all doctor profile pages Keep the URLs in the Sitemap file so that Google will recrawl them and find the noindex meta tag make sure that they're not disallowed by the robots.txt file
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0